1. samreddy Pushpa !at!' v. The state of relangan?

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 grant an order or direction or writ, more so in the nature of Writ of ft/andamus to declare action of the Respondent No.4 in issuing the Lr.No.AAE/OP/ttleerpet/D.No.299125-26 dated 07.08.2025 threatening to disconnect the supply of electricity in the Plot bearing Plot No.458 in Sy.No.28 situated at Nandi Hills, Meerpet Village, Ranga Reddy District owned by Petitioner No.1 as illegal, arbitrary, highhanded and in violation of the principles of natural justice apart from being violative of Articlesl4 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and with a consequential prayer to set aside the L r. No.AAE/OP/Mee rpet/D. N0. 2 99 I 25-26 dated 07 .08.2025 . lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 Respondents No.3 and 4 not to disconnect the electricity connection of the petitioners in the plot bearing Plot No.45B in Sy.No.28 situated at Nandi Hills, Meerpet Village, Ranga Reddy District Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. S NAGESH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR ENERGY counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4: SRI N SREEDHAR REDDY ( SC FOR TGSPDCL) The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAI(A WRIT PETITION No.23735 of 2O25 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of respondent No.4 in issuing the letter dated 07.O8.2O25 threatening to disconnect the supply of electricity in the Plot bearing No.45B in Survey No.28, situated at Nandi Hills, Meerpet Village, Ranga Reddy District.

2. Petitioner No.1 purchased l)lot No.45B in Survey No.2B, admeasuring 300 square yards at Nandi Hills, Meerpet Viilage, Ranga Reddy District, through a registered sale deed bearing Document No.98 L l2OO5, dated 05.02.2005. Subsequently, Petitioners Nos.l and 2 entered into a lease deed dated

04.06.2024 for 750 square yards, covering Plot Nos.4SB, 4Sg, and 460 in sy.No.28. Petitioner No.1 apptied for building perinission on 16.03.2023 for construction of Ground + 1 upper Floor at Plot No.45B, which was granted on the sarne day. Thereafter, a Show cause Notice dated 30.oT.2024 was issued, to which a reply was submitted on o3.08.2024. A Fina_l Notice dated 17.10.2024 was issued by Respond.ent No.s, alleging construction deviations. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners filed 1II,' 2 NBK,J W.P. No.23735 of 2025 w.P.No.1 lll85 of 2025, and this court grantecl stafus quo orders on L5.o4.2,025, which were extendecl to 2'2.o7.2o2s, and larer, on the saicl date, were extended until further orclers. Despite the subsisting court orders, petitioners recei',.ed a letter dated

07.o8.2o2fi from Respondeirt No.4, threatening disconnection of electricity u,ithin 48 hours, allegedly at the instance of Responder-.lt No.5. Hence, this Writ petition.

3. Hear,c Sri S. Nagesh Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri l{. Sreedhar Redd1,, Iearned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCI, for respondent Nos.2 to 4. perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners made submissions on the lines of writ affidavit and contended that petitioners received a letter dated 07.o8.2025 trom Respondent No.4, threatening disconnect.ion of electricity to the subject property within 4g hours, based on instructions from Respondent No.5. It is further submitted that Petitioner No.1 obtained an electricity connection on 09 .06.'.2025 after paying Rs.4,23,5 SB / -, and also paid the first electricitl, bill for August 2o2s amounting to Rs.56,094/-.

5. Learned counsel for Respondent No.5 filed written instructions stating that . Petitioner No.1 obtained building j 3 NBK,J W,P, No.23735 of 2025 permission on 25.03.2023 for construction of a residential building consisting of Ground + First Floors in Plot No.458, Sy.No.28 of Meerpet Village, admeasuring 300 sq. yds. However, Petitioner is allegedly constructing a building for commercial use, in deviation from the approved residential plan and without maintaining mandatory setbacks. It is further stated that the construction extends to 493 sq. yds., exceeding the permitted 300 sq. yds., and that access is being taken from a 4o-feet road (part of a proposed loo-feet-wide Master Plan road), instead of the 30-feet-u,ide road shown in the approved plan. Accordingly, the Respondent prays to vacate the said interim order and dismiss the writ petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the order passed by the High court of Andhra Pradesh in T.sree Ramq. Mur-thg qnd others vs. special officer (District collector, Nellore) of the Municipalltg, Nellore and otherst, wherein at paragraph No.13, it is held as follows:

13. As per '42.2' of the said conditions, ..the Superintending Engineer of the Board ffi&y, if desired by the concerned statutory or any other competent authority of Government, after giving notice calling for ' 2OO2 SCC Ontine Ap 35: (2002) 2 ALD 731 .I 4 NBK,' W.P. No.23735 of 2O2s e>(planation and after considering thc same, discontinue supply without forfeiting the rights of the APSE Board under the agreement with thc consumer,,. Hencc, it is ciear that while initiating such an action, notice has to be issued by the competc,t authority in this regard. It is needless to men.tioned that the cclnsumcr and the APStrB are governed by the APSBB Terms and Conditions of supply. It is also not in dispute that the respondent Nos.3 to 5 had effected disconnection of the electricity supply on the instructions of the first respondent. No doubt, specific stand had been taken that it is a bonafide action done keeping in vieu, of the public interest inr,olved. It is, no doubt, true that the public interest involved in thr: matter also has to be given due weight while deciding the rights of the citizens iir the realm of the public law field, but at the samc time, a balance has to be m:aintained in this regard. When specifically the terms arLd conditions of supply provide for the issuance of a notice and further, inasmuch as, such action on the part of the authorities of APSE Board lands the concerned consumers into serious trouble, the au-thorities are expected to observe the principles of natural justice. In any view of the mater, in a matter of this nature, proceeding with thc action of the disconnection of the electricity supply without issiuance of any notice to the concerned consumers cannot be said to be sustainable in law. It is needless to mentioned that the concerned authorities under the Municipality are at liberty to initiate appropriate action *z"relating to the shifting of thc units under the relevant E-, 5 N8K,J W.P. No.23735 ot 2025 provisions of the A.P.Municipalites Act. It is also made clear that if the respondent Nos.3 to 5 intend to initiate any action in this regard, further, at the instance of the respondent Nos.l and 2 or any other statutory authority or competent authorit5r, it is needless to mention that the authorities have to follow the procedure as specified under 42.2 of the APSEB Terms and conditions of supply.

7. The above-said case is not applicable to facts of the case on hand. Further, it is to be noted that in recent judgment in Rajendra Kumq.r Barjatga a, (Lp. Auq.s Eaam Vikas Parishad2, the Hon'ble supreme court in the larger public interest, issued directions in addition to the directives issued in Re: Directions tn the ma.tter of d.emotttion of structLtres. Relevant for the purpose of this case are: (iv) All the necessary service connections, such as, Electricity, water supply, sewerage connection, etc.; sha[ be given by the service provider / Board to the buildings only after the production of the completion / occupation certificate. (v) Even after issuance of completion certificate, deviation I violation if any contrary to the planning permission brought to '202+scconline sc3767 I 6 NBK,J W.P. No.23735 of 2025 the notice of the authority immediate steps be taken by the said authority concerned, in accordance with lau,. ngainst the builder / owner / occupant; and the official, who is responsible for issuance of wrongful completion / occr-rpation certificate shall be proceeded departmentally forthwith. ("i) No permission / licence to conduct any business / trade rnust be given by any authorities including local boclies of States /Union Territories in any unauthorised building irrespective of it beirrg residential or comlrercial building. (vii) The development must be in conformity with the zonal plan land usagrj. Any modification to such zona| plan and usage must be taken bI, strictly fcrllor,r,ing the rules in place land in considerat-ion of the larger pr,rblic interest ancl the impact on the environment. B. considering the submissions mad.e b-r' both the learned counsel and examining the material placed on record. and in particuiar the instructions submittecl by respondent No.5, it is evident that petitioners have undertaken construction beyond the appro'ued plan and are using the building for commercial purposes, despite having obtaireed permission only a residential building. In that view of the matter and also in view 7', 7 NBK,J W.P. No.23735 ot 2025 of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned action of respondent No.4.

9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if &fly, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. / //TRUE COPY/ SD/. B. REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER To, \

1. One CC to SRl. S NAGESH REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRl. N SREEDHAR REDDY ( SC FOR TGSPDCL) IOPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP for Energy, High court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad.IOUI

4. Two CD Copies KKS GJP 1 I Jl- "(' ..) t.-) L ?0ilot,& 6(' z * * HIGH COURT DATED:18/08/2025 ORDER WP.No.23735 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS