High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of [\/andamus declaring the action of the Respondents 2 to 6 as arbitrary, illegal, and violative of constitutional and statutory provisions in providing electricity connections to the petitioners Apartment LAQSH constructed in Plot No. 167 and '168, Survey No. 39 and 40, Bandlaguda Village, UppalMandal, Medchl- Malkajgiri District as illegal, null, void, arbitrary and consequently, direct the respondents to provide electricity connections to the petitioners Apartment LAQSH constructed in Plot No. 167 and 168, Survey No. 39 and 40, Bandlaguda Village, Uppalt\ilandal, M*edchl- Malkajgiri District by extending the LT Supply to 10 domestic loads in addition to the existing 1 No 3PH sKW (CAT- Vlll, SC No. 1449- 01368) without insisting to occupancy certificate from the Respondent No.7, consequently declare the inaction of respondents No.2 to 6 as arbilrary, illegal, and violative of constitutional and statutory provisions and award appropriate costs, and grant such other relief as this Honble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. lA NO: 1 OF 2O2s Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 to 6 to provide electricity connections to the petitioners Apartment LAQSH constructed in Plot No. 167 and 168, Survey No. 39 and 40, Bandlaguda Village, Uppal Mandal, Medchl- Malkajgiri District by extending the LT Supply to 10 domestic loads in addition to the existing 1 No 3PH 5KW (CAT- Vlll, SC No. 1449- 01368), pending disposal of the above Wdt petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI R.PRAVEEN Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR ENERGY counsel for Respondents No.2to6 ' "*,*i111?itt REDDY, Counsel for Respondent No.7 : SRI G.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, SC FOR GHMC The Court made the following: ORDER \ :, HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAI(A PETITION OF ORDER: In this Writ Petition, a direction is sought to Respondents TGSPDCL to provide electricity connection to residential flats in LAQSH Apartments constructed in Plot Nos. L67 and. 168, Survey Nos. 39 and 40, Bandlaguda Village, uppal Mandal, Mcdchal-Malkajgiri District by extendi.ng LT supply to 1o domestic loads in addition to the existing 1 No. 3 PH 5 KW (CAT-VIII, SC No. 1449-01368) without insisting on production of 'occupancy certificate' from Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporatiotr. Petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and 2. possessor of subject property. It is stated, they started construction o[ building with stilt + 5 upper floors according to the approved sanctioned plan. They have also paid all the requisite fee / charges / challans to the respondents for electricity connection and the same was also provided uide SC No. L449-O1368 for construction purposes. Subsequently, petitioner made a formal Application dated O8.O I .2025 to Respondents 2 to 6 for execution of work to provide extension LT supply to 10 domestic loads in \ --'!reeir*:i It i ,l I I I 2 addition to the existing one connection, for which, respondents, through their letter dated 31.OL.2025 communicated the estimated cost of Rs.2,26,440/- and petitioner promptly deposited .the said amount. Despite the same, respondents refused to provide connection solely on the ground of non-submission of occupancy certificate. It is also stated, petitioner applied for such certificate fr<>m GHMC ',r,hich is currently pending. Hence, the Writ Petition.

3. Heard lcarned counsel for petitioner Sri Rapolu Praveen. He contends that this Court in several Writ Petitions directed respondents to release po\rrer supply to the premises of petitioner therein subject to compliance with the terms and conditions and on furnishing an undertaking to produce the occupancy certificate from the Municipal Corporation concerned within a prescribed period and if no such occupancy certificate is produced within the stipulated period, it is open to respondents to take appropriate action in accordance with law. Hence, similar order may be passed even in this Writ Petition also.

4. Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL submits that based on the aborre order, the authorities have been releasing power supply, insisting on "vithout I h J production of occupancy certificate and on the assurance given by the parties that they would furnish the said certificate at a later date, however, they are not turning up with the certificates at all and enjoying the power supply. Hence, learned Standing counsel prays to take the said aspect into consideration. 5 Heard Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC.

6. Evidently, TGSPDCL in their letter dated

31.o1.2025 addresscd to petitioner specifically mentioned that ,no seruice connectiort shall be released" for multi-storied. build.ings / complexes greater than l0 meters in lrcight unless ocatpanca certificate from the authoities concerned is produced,. The corporation also granted building permit dated 2L.o2.2023 subject to the conditions that public amenities such as water supply, electricity connections '*,ill be provided only on production of occupancy certificate. petitioner, without questioning the said condition, cannot seek indulgence of this Court now.

7. Though learned counsel for petitioner places strong reliance on various orders, with great respect, this court inclines to take a slight departure, for, several buildings are mushrooming gfter getting approval for a particular plan, thereafter giving a \ 'l r{ 4 h go-by, additional floors are being raised unscrupulously and the parties are applying for building regularisation scheme for legalising the s;aid unauthorised structures and the civic body is not able to touch these structures. This Court cannot be a mute spectator for such unceremonious procedure and cloes not want to encourage this type of activity in the interest of society at large.

8. 'lhe above-said opinion of this Court is justified by the recent judgment in Rajendra Kumar Barjatga u. U.P. Aua.s Eoam Vikas Po,rishadr wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the larger public interest, issued directions in addition to the directives issued in Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of stntctures. Rek:vant for the purpose of this case dre: Ir (iv) All the necessary service connections, such &S, Electricity, water supply, sewerage connection, etc., shall bc given by the service provider I Board to the buildings only after the production of the completion / occupation certificate. (u) Even after issuance of completion certificate, cleviation I violation if any contrary to the planning permission brought to the notice of the authority immediate steps be taken try the said authority concerned, in accordance with law, against the builder / ' z02a sCC Onlinc SC l7(r7 5 owner / occupant; and the official, who is responsible for issuance of wrongful completion / occupation certificate shall be proceeded departmentally forthwith. (vi).No permission / licence to conduct any business I trade must be given by any authorities including local bodies of states /union Territories in any unauthorised building irrespective of it being residential or commercial building. (vii) The development must be in conformity with the zonal plan land usage. Any modification to such zonal plan and usage must be taken by strictly foltowing the rules in place rand in consideration of the larger public interest and the impact on the environment.

9. In view of the lau, laid down by the Hon,ble Supreme court making production of occupancy certificate I completion certificate as a condition precedent for releasing power supply and also in view of the rampant misuse of the liberty granted by this court to the parties on several occasions, with regard to non- insistence of occupancy Certificate, this Court takes serious note of the situation. r ,( 't I f J \ 't 6

10. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing petitioner to approach the municipal authorities concerned first for issuance of occupancy certificate. on procrrrcing such certificate only, respondent - TGSPDCL shall consider the case of petitioner for rerease of electricity connection, in accordance with law. No costs l1 closed. The miscellaneous Applicati.ns, il.an.r, shall stand SD/. C.DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER /TRUE COPY// \ To, ietungana, HYderabad- 500022' l.ThePrincipalSecret,ry?gwglandEnergyDepartmentSecretariat,stateof 2. The chairman and tr/a.nqoins Director, Southern Power Distribution company of Telangan, sT"ii'Lil, GyiigitJ Cori:orate office at 6- 1- 50 Mint ComPou-nd, HYderabad 500063'

3.TheSuperintendingEngineer/operationiSaroornagarCircle'TGSPDCL Saroornagar.

4.TheDivisionalEngineer/operation/SaroornagarDivision'TGSPDCL' Saroomagar.

5. The Assistant Divisional Engineeri operation, L. B Nagar Sub- Division, TGSPDC L, Saroornagar' L Saroornagar.

6.TheAssistantEngineer/SEoP,Saroornagar/AEoPR.KPuTamTGSPDC 7. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad tMunicipal Corporation, Near Tank Bund, HYderabad.

8. One CC to SRI R.PRAVEEN, Advocate' [OPUC] g. Two ccs to Gp FoR ENERGY, High court for the state of Telangana. [ouT] I0.oneCCtoSRIN.SREEDHARREDDY,SCFoRTGSPDCL.IOPUC] 'l1.one cc to sRr c.tMADHusuDHAN REDDY, sc FoR GHMC. topucl

12.Two CD Copies. s BSK TKS / 1 tiY:a$.W HIGH COURT DATED:2 2tO7 t2O2S \ I I ORDER WP.No.20950 of 2O2S .':1 +':'r '' i /r li () l,) g4 t{tu ?{ffi * DEsFp.TC\\ 1--l) l DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS e( {D *