Directions in th.e mattcl of structu.res. Relevant for the purpose of this c r v. U.P. Avas red Standing Codrt in the lition to the of demolition e are

Judgment

2. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt., Power and Energy Department Dr. B. R- Ambedkar Telangana Secretariat Hyderabad. The Northern Power Distribution Corporation Ltd. (TSNPDCL), Vidyutbhavan, Nakkalagunta, Hanmakonda Rep. by its ADE, Mallela Venkata Ramana Assistant Divisional Engineer, The Northern Power Distribution Corporation Ltd., Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri Kothagudem Dist.

4. Badrachalam Gram Panchayat, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Bhadrachalam Mallela Venkata Ramana, S/o, Rama Rao, Aged about 55 years, Occ: Business, R/o, H.No- 9-2-8611 , Shanthi Nagar Colony, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. *R5 impleaded as per C,O. dt. 07 -1O-2O25 in lA No. 212025 ...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Anic|e- 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 inlhe nature oF Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing letter No.ADE/OP/BCM//FN0/25D-No .508125-26 dt. 191812025 seeking to disconnect service Nos. 08101 -22647 (1 ), 081 01 -26983 (2), 08101 -26479 (3), 081 01 -26984 (4) and 08101-26997(5) and SC No. 08101-26985 in respect of the residential house of the petltioner situated at Shanti nagar of Bhadrachalam, as illegal, 7 arbitrary and violates Articles 19, 21 and 300(A) of C('i stitution of lndia and Consequently declare that the respondent cannot dis() nnect the residential service connections of the petitioner in the interest of justi(x lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the c rcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Courl r ray be pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuance to the 3rd 1 spondent letter No. No.ADE/OP/BCMi/FN0/25D-No .508125-26 dl.19l8l2125 pr rding disposal of the above Writ Petition Gounsel for the Petitioner : SRI P V RAMANA Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: GP FOR ENERGY Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 : SRI A. CHANDFI, TSHEKAR, SC FOR TGNPDCL t Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI K. PRADEEP REt DY, Counsel for the Respondent No. 5: SRI B. BALAJI The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.25315 of 2025 ORDER: Sri P.V. Ramana, learned counsel for tlre petitioner; learned Government pleader for Enerry, for respondent No. l; Sri A. Chandrashekar, learned Standing Counsel for TGNPDCL, for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Sri K. Pradeep Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Standing Counsei for TGNPDCL submitted that the issue raised in this Writ petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in W .p.No.22672 ot 2025, dated 31.O7 .2025 and therefore, the same order may be passed in this writ petitio. as well. The operative portion ofthe said order ieads as under: "6. Evidentiy, 'I'GSPDCL in their letter <trated OZ.OL.\O2S addressed to petitioner specilically mentioned that ,no service connection sha_ll be releascd for multi-storied buildings /complexes greater than 1O meters in height unless occupzrncy certihcate from the authorities concerned is produced. Petitioner, without questioning the said condition, cannot seek indulgence of this Court now.

7. Though learned counsel for petitioner places str.ong reliancc on various orders, with great respect, this Court inclines to take a slight departure, for, several buildings are mushrooming aJter gettrng 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 arld the civic body is not able to touch th.ese structures. This Court cannot be a rnute spectator for such unceremonious procedurc and does not want,'to encourage th is lvpc of actiuity in the inrcrcst of society at large. 8. The above-said opinion of this Court is jusffied by the 2 recent judgmgnt in Rajendra Ku.mar Barjaty r Eiram Vikas Parishad (2024 SCC OnLine Lei r Counsel 3767) wherein, thc Hon'ble Suprem,: largtr public interest, issucd directions in er directives issued in Re: Directions in th.e mattcl of structu.res. Relevant for the purpose of this c r v. U.P. Avas red Standing Codrt in the lition to the of demolition e are: (iv) A1! the necessa-ry service connections, such i .t water supply, seweraEe connection, etc., shall service provider / Board to the buildings ; production of the completion / occupation ccrt I (v) Even after issuance of completion certihc, ,lviolation if any contraqr tc the planning pcrmi to the notice of the authority immediate itlps t < said authority concerned, in accordance with lz,r builder/owner/occupant; and tJle official, r.,",ho : for iSsuance of wrongful completion / occupa . phatl,bg proceeded departmeirtally forrhwi'-h. s, Electricity, grven by the rly after the :ate. te, deviation sion brought t aken by t1.e ', against the ; responsible rn certificate (vi) No perrnission / liccncc to collduct any bus must be given by anv authorities including l: Statcs/Union Territorics in anv unauthlri irrespective of it being resi<icnr ial or commercia ness / trade :al bociies cf ed building ruilding. (vii) The developrnent must bc in conforrnity ,i th the z_cnal plan larrd usage. Any modihcation to slrch z,r al plarr and usage. must be taken by strictly follouing thc r rles in place land in consideration of the larger public inre.est and the impact on the environment.

9. kr view of the law lard down by the Hon,ble Sr preme Court mary_ng production of occupancy certihcat€ , completion certificate as condition preccdent for releasing 1o-". "rppty Irdr4io_h vier.r of the rarnpant misuse of the lil erly granted by this Court to the parties on several occasions witlr-regard to non-insistence of Occupancy Certificate, ttiis Court takes serious note of the situation

10. Therefore, tl e Writ petition is disposec of directing petitioner to approach the municipal aurhorit ( s concerned nece_ssa_ry occupancy certificate. On prc lucing such certificate on1y, respor-rdent TGSpDCL shall cons Cer the case of petitioner for release of electricity t:cr nection, in accordalce with law- No costs,, -for ! I ! I, 3

3. l,earned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.4 have no objection.

4. Accordingly, in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.22672 of 2025, dated, 37.02.2025, ard for the reasons alike, this writ petition is disposed of directing the municipal authorities concerned first for necessary certificates. on producing such certificates only, respondent TGNPDCL shall consider the case of petitioner, for rgleagg of electricity connection, in accordance with law. No costs. Pendi miscellaneous applications, if any, shall/tand closed SD/-B. REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Principal Secretary to Govt., Power and Energy- Sgpadment Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Telangana Secretariat, The State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

2. Assistant Divisional Engineer, Mallela Venkata Ramana The Northem Power Distribution Corporation Ltd. (TSNPDCL), Vidyutbhavan, Nakkalagunta, Hanmakonda

3. Assistant Divisionat Engineer, The Northern Power Distribution Corporation Ltd., Bhadrachalam, Bhad radri Kothagudem Dist.

4. Executive Officer, Badrachalam Gram Panchayat, Bhadrachalam 5. One CC to SRI P V RAIVIANA, Advocate IOPUCI 6. OneCCto SRI A. CHANDRASHEKAR, SC FORTGNPDCL 7. One CC to SRI K. PRADEEP REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 8. One CC to SRI B. BALAJI, Advocate [OPUC] 9. Two CCs to GP FOR ENERGY, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

10.Two CD Copies PVL BS &") HIGH COURT DATED:0711012025 ORDER WP.No.25315 ot 2025 l:; SI Ar ( ( prp;f i)lr{ i.'- DISPOSING OF THEWRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 13 J(s ul,-|,..