1. Anjaneyulu Aitha v. 1. The'State of Telangana

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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondent No.s in disconnecting the power supply to electricity service connections having service Nos.12015O7007 (USC No. 112428012) and 1201507O08 (USC No. 112428013) belongs to the Petitioners situated in the Houses bearing Nos. 14O13O174113411 Serilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy Distric{, even in spite of the Petitioners regularly paying the electricity consumption charges without any default, and without following due process of law as arbitrary, illegal, beyond jurisdiction and violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the Respondent No.5 to restore the power supply to electricity service connection Nos.1201507007 (USC No. 112428012) and 1201507008 (USC No. 112428013) belong to the Petitioners in the Houses bearing Nos. 14013O174113411 and H.No.'160/30/7 4113412, situated at Anjaiah Nagar, Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District forthwith, in the interest of justice. IANO: 1 AF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC pralng 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.s to restore the power supply to electricity service connection Nos.1201507007 (USC No. 112428O12) and 1201507008 (USC No. 1124280131 belong to the Petitioners in the Houses bearing Nos.1-60/30i74113411 and H.No.1- 6ol3on4n34l2, situated at Anjaiah Nagar, Gachibowli Village, Seri{ingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District, pending disposal of the writ petition in the interest of iustice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI GUDI SAWANARAYANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.l: GP FOR ENERGY Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 5: SRI N.SREEDHAR REDOY, SC FOR TGSPDCL Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI G.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, SC FORGHMC The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI WSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 229OL Or 2025 ORDER: In this Writ Petition, a direction is sought to Respondent No.5 - TGSPDCL to provide electricity connection to the petitioner Houses bearing No. 1-60/3O/74/I34ll and H.No.1- 60130/741L34/2, situated at Anjaiah Nagar, Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District. 2 Petitioners clairns to be the absolute owner and possessor of the subject property. It is stated that they constructed a stilt + 2 upper floors according to the approved sanctioned plan dated OL.O9.2O2O, and they regularly paying the electricity consumption charges without any default. It is stated that, due to family necessities ald constraints, they have constructed four more upper floors without permission, in addition to the sanctioned stilt + 2 floors. The petitioners rnade a representation to GHMC on 26.04.2025 requesting to regularize the said additional floors, but without considering the same, respondent No.6 issued demolition orders for the said building. Aggrieved by tlre sarne, petitioners filed W.P.No.I4sl4 of 2025, and this Cotxt, uide interim order dated O1.05.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in the said writ \ / Z NBKJ wP 22901 2025 r-) petition, granted status quo orders. While tJle said writ petition was pending, and in spite of the status quo orders, respondent No.6 issued a letter dated 22.07.2O25 to respondent No.5 to disconnect the electricit5r power connections of the petitioners. Accordingly, respondent No.S disconnected the same without grving any notice to the petitioners. Hence, the writ petition.

3. Heard Sri Gudi Satyanaray€rna Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Enerry for respondent No.l and Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL for respondent Nos.2 to 5. Perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners contends that this Court in several Writ Petitions directed respondents to release power supply to the premises of petitioners therein subject to corrrpliance with the terms and conditions and furflrer stated that when they questioned respondent No.S about the disconnection of the power supply, respondent No.5 informed them ttrat respondent No.6 had given a letter dated 22.07.2025 directing disconnection of the power supply to petitioners. Accordingly, respondent No.S disconnected the same without giving any notice to the petitioners. Therefore, he requested this Court that power supply be restored. ,/ 3 NBKJ wP 22901 2025 5 karned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL, appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5, submits that petitioners obtained building permission on O1.O9.2O20 for the construction of a building w'ith stilt + 2 upper floors. However, petitioners are allegedly constructing four additional upper floors without permission, in addition to the sanctioned stilt + 2 floors. Therefore, respondent No.6 issued a letter dated 22.07.2025, stating that a show cause notice was isslr.ed to petitioners for the unaut*rorized construction of the additional floors, and the oflice had sealed the premises of the above-mentioned unauthorized floors on L9.O7.2024.In view of ttre above, respondent No.6 requested that electrical power supply not be provided to the said unauthorized floors and, if already given, requested disconnection of tlre electricity connection to the unauthorized construction to avoid further legal complications.

6. Though learned counsel for petitioners places strong reliance on various orders, with great respect, this Court inclines to take a slight departure, for, several buildings are mushrooming after getting approval for a particular plan, thereafter giving a go- by, additional floors are being raised unscrupulously and the parties are applying for building regularisation scheme for legalising the said unauthorised structures and the civic body is \r/ 4 NBK.J wP 2290t 2025 a not able to touch these structures. This Court cannot be a mute spectator for such unceremonious procedure and does not want to encourage this type of activity in tlee interest of society at large. The above-said opinion of this Court is justified by the

7. recent judgment in RaJendrlr Kumar Bantatga a. U.P. Avas Evam Vlkz's Parlshadl, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the larger public interest, issued directions in addition to the directives issued in Re.' Directions in tlw matter of demolition of, strucfires. Relevant for the purpose of this case are: (iv) All the necessar5z service connections, such as, Electricit5r, water supply, sewerage connection, etc., shall be given by the service provider / Board to the buildings only after the production of the completion / occupation certi{icate. (v) Even after issuance of completion certificate, deviation / violation if any contraly to the planning permission brought to the notice of the authority immediate steps be taken by the said authority concerned, in accordance with law, against the builder I owner / occupant; and ttre official, who is responsible for issuance of wrongful - \ I q24 SCC Ontine sC 3767 5 NBIqJ wP 2A0t 2025 completion / occupation certificate shall be proceeded departmentally forthwith. (vi) No permission / licence to conduct any business / 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 conformit5r with the zonal plan land usage. Any modification to such zonal plan and usage must be taken by strictly following the rules in place land in consideration of the larger public interest and the impact on the environment. B. Having regard to the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material on record, this 1 Court is of the considered opinion that petitioners have constructed four additional upper floors beyond tlle sanctioned plan, without obtaining prior approval from the competent authority. Though a representation has been made seeking regularization, the same has not been considered or approved as of now. It may be noted that in the absence of such re8ularization, 6 NBKJ wP-22901_2025 C r. and in light of the letter issued by respondent No.6 directing disconnection of power supply to the unauthorized construction, no fault can be found with the action of respondent No.5 in disconnecting the electrieit5r supply, particularly when the construction was sealed and is alleged to be unauthorrzed. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to issue any dlection for restonation of electricity oonnection to premises constructed in violation of the sanctioned plan, as it would arnount to indifectly permitting unauthorized construction, which is impermissibl,e in law. 9 Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous appl,ications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. /fTRUE COPY/I ^,3i*ili3;Bf"Tffi /./ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRI GUDI SATYANARAYANA REDOY' Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRt N SREEDHAR REDDY' SC FOR TGSPDCL [OPUCI 3. One CC to SRI G MADHUSUDHAN REDDY' SC FORGHMC IOPUCI d Two cCS to GP FoR ENERGY, High Court for the State of Telangana at HYderabad [OUTI

5. Two CD CoPies BSR BM & HIGH COURT DATED:1810812025 ORDER WP.No.22901 of 2025 lHE S Tt ( o (J ? 4 iAl{ 2028 l, ': pATCll * DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WTHOUT COSTS s .odd Y.L- O.{ar