Telangana High Court
M/S. Mahalakshmi Rice Mill vs The Superintendent Of Engineer … on 23 December, 2024
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION No.20681 of 2011
ORDER:
Heard Palle Sri Harinath, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri
N.Sridhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel,
appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking
prayer as under:
“…to issue a writ, order or direction more
particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus
declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in not
looked into the representation dt.19.07.2011 nor
conducting any enquiry and in a arbitrary manner
trying to forcibly recover the alleged amounts of
Rs.4,01,361/ towards the Electricity Bill for the
month of July, 2011 in respect of the Service
Connection No.1862000593 pertaining to the
Petitioner unit situated at Borpatla Village,
Hathnoora Mandal, Medak District as wholly illegal,
arbitrary and against the provisions of the Electricity
Act and violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution of India and further direct the
Respondents not to recover the amounts of
2
SN, J
WP_20681_2011Rs.4,01,361/- as claimed towards July, 2011
Electricity bill in respect of the Service Connection
No.1862000593 belonging to petitioner’s unit
situated at Borpatla Village, Hathnoora Mandal,
Medak District pending disposal of Writ Petition such
other order or orders may deem fit and proper in
the circumstances of justice.”
3. This Court vide its order dated 25.07.2011,
passed interim orders in W.P.M.P.No.25118 of 2011
in W.P.No.20681 of 2011 in favour of the petitioner
observing as under:
“Interim direction subject to condition
that the petitioner shall deposit Rs.2,00,000/-
(rupees two lakhs only), before the respondents.
Notice.”
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that in pursuance to the interim orders
of this Court dated 25.07.2011 passed in
W.P.M.P.No.25118 of 2011 in W.P.No.20681 of 2011, the
petitioner had cleared all the pending dues and there are
no dues against the petitioner to be cleared by him.
3
SN, J
WP_20681_2011
5. Sri N.Sridhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the
submission of the petitioner may be brought on record and
the writ petition may be closed.
6. Bringing the said submission of the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner on
record, the writ petition is closed. However, there
shall be no order as to costs.
The miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
__________________________
MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
Date: 23.12.2024
LPD