Telangana High Court
Chinthakuntla Amulya Chandra vs The State Of Telangana on 18 July, 2024
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 18844 OF 2024
ORDER:
In this Writ Petition, a direction is sought to Respondents 2 to 6 - TSSPDCL to provide electricity connection to Plot No. 1400 (Western part) admeasuring 1000 sq. yards in Survey Nos. 1 to 40, 282 to 368, 369(P), 370 to 373, 374(P), 375 to 387, 395 to 401, 454, 456 to 459, 505 (P), 510 to 564 situated at HMDA Layout, Uppal Bhagath, Uppal Circle, Uppal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District without insisting on production of occupancy certificate from the 7th respondent - Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation.
2. The 2nd petitioners claims to be the owner of the subject property. It is stated that they secured permission for construction of 1 cellar, 1 stilt + five upper floors on 02.01.2024 and completed construction as per the approved plan. Petitioners case is that when they applied for electricity connection, the 3rd respondent addressed the letter to the 1st petitioner to deposit necessary charges at Rs.4,07,262/- and they accordingly, paid the said amount vide demand draft dated 02.05.2024. However, the 3rd respondent instead of providing electricity connection, now, insisting on production of occupancy certificate, which, according to petitioners, is not mandatory.
2
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners Sri Ch. Ravinder and Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TSSPDCL.
3. Evidently, the Corporation granted permission to petitioners for raising 1 cellar, 1 stilt + five upper floors, subject to certain terms and conditions. One such condition is 'public amenities such as water supply, electricity connection will be provided only on production of occupancy certificate.' TSSPDCL also in their letter specifically mentioned that 'no service connection shall be released for multi-storied buildings / complexes greater than 10 meters in height unless occupancy certificate from the authorities concerned is produced'. In the light of the clear terms and conditions prescribed by the Corporation as well as TSSPDCL while granting permission itself, petitioners without questioning the said conditions, cannot seek indulgence of this Court now.
4. Though learned counsel for petitioners places strong reliance on various orders passed by this Court, wherein the respondent - TSSDCL was directed to provide power supply to the premises in question, subject to compliance of terms and conditions and on furnishing an undertaking to produce the occupancy certificate within a prescribed period, and if no such occupancy certificate is produced within such period, it is open to 3 the respondents to take appropriate action in accordance with law, with great respect, this Court inclines to take a slight departure, for, several buildings are mushrooming after getting approvals 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 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 the interest of society at large.
5. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioners to approach the municipal authorities concerned and apply / obtain occupancy certificate. On producing such a certificate, the respondent - TSSPDCL shall consider the case of petitioners for release of electricity connection, in accordance with law. No costs.
6. The miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.
-------------------------------------- NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 18th July 2024 ksld