Telangana High Court
Abdul Rahim vs The State Of Telangana on 29 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
WRIT PETITION No.3402 of 2026
29th DAY OF APRIL, 2026
Between:
Abdul Rahim.
...Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana and 7 others.
...Respondents
ORDER:
Heard Ms. Nishtha, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL, for respondent Nos.2 to 6. Perused the entire record.
2. The writ petition is filed with the following prayer:
"...to issue a writ, order, or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the record of Appeal No.21 of 2025-26 on the file of the Hon'ble Vidyut Ombudsman for the State of Telangana and declare award dated 06.10.2025 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and set aside and thereby declare that the award dated 15.09.2025 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and consequently direct the Respondents to release power supply to the Petitioner herein against his NR90125437534 dated 15.5.2025 and to pass such other order..."
Brief facts:
3. The case of the petitioner is that he is the occupier of land admeasuring 36 square yards in Plot Nos.69 and 96, Survey Nos.71 and 72 RY, J WP_3402_2026 of Baghlingampally Taluq, Hyderabad. The said land was allotted to the father of the petitioner vide patta certificate bearing No.F1/9308/80. The father of the petitioner died leaving the petitioner as his sole legal heir. The petitioner approached City Civil Court, Hyderabad, to declare him as legal heir of the deceased-father vide O.S.No.992 of 2016 and said suit was disposed of by the learned XXII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, vide judgment and decree dated 15.03.2017. The petitioner is declared to be in legal occupation of the scheduled property and to restrain the petitioner's sister, Putli Begum, from causing interference. The petitioner, after being declared as legal heir of his deceased-father, applied for 2 KW domestic category new connection vide NR901254375348 on 15.05.2025 by paying applicable charges of Rs.3,625/-. Thereafter, the petitioner received information that a meter is allotted against the registration number and that the linemen would inspect the premises and fix the meter. The linemen made inspection and have fixed the meter and released power supply. Thereafter, the respondents, without notice, removed the meter and power supply. No reason was cited for removing the meter and disconnecting the power supply. On account of such disconnection of power supply, the petitioner is living in rented premises. 2
RY, J WP_3402_2026
4. The petitioner left with no other remedy approached Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum ('CGRF') and filed complaint dated 07.07.2025. CGRF registered C.G.No.59/2025-26, Hyderabad Central Circle and vide award dated 15.09.2025, the CGRF rejected the complaint stating that there are no proper documents and there are family disputes between the siblings regarding ownership of the property.
5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached Vidyut Ombudsman vide Appeal No.21 of 2025-26. The Assistant Engineer, Kachiguda, vide letter dated 29.09.2025, stated that power supply is removed on account of complaint made by one Ameena Bee, who is the sister of late Putli Begum. Copy of the complaint letter dated 24.05.2025 is submitted before the Vidyut Ombudsman. The said Ameena Bee, who is the complainant, objected to the power supply given to the petitioner and requested not to continue the same in future. The Vidyut Ombudsman vide award dated 06.10.2025 rejected the Appeal No.21 of 2025-26 with a direction to the petitioner to approach proper forum for resolving the civil disputes. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is preferred. Grounds:
6. In grounds of the writ petition, the petitioner contended that there is no civil dispute between himself and Ameena Bee, that the Vidyut 3 RY, J WP_3402_2026 Ombudsman misinterpreted letter dated 24.05.2025 issued by Ameena Bee by failing to consider that a new connection was issued, but not from the connection of Ameena Bee in service No.H2001858, USC No.101122300. The petitioner pleaded that the Vidyut Ombudsman cannot entertain objections by persons without support of documentary evidence, and that in the instant case, objection raised by Ameena Bee is entertained without there being support of any documentary evidence. In view of the aforementioned, the petitioner pleaded that award passed by Vidyut Ombudsman and the CGRF are to be set aside.
Counter by respondent Nos.2 to 6:
7. Respondent Nos.2 to 6 opposed the writ petition by filing counter to the effect that the petitioner sought connection to his 36 square yard plot along with an application and indemnity bond, to the effect that in case the petitioner is not the real owner, the power supply can be disconnected without further notice. The petitioner had submitted land allocation certificate of his father and therefore, a meter was sanctioned. While fixing the meter, there were objections from Ameena Bee, who is the sister of the petitioner and is residing in the same premises. The premises already had a service connection in the name of Putli Begum and the meter sought to be installed in the premises of the petitioner was not installed. On account of 4 RY, J WP_3402_2026 the respondents retracting from fixing the meter, the petitioner approached CGRF and Vidyut Ombudsman and where he suffered adverse orders.
8. Further, it is pleaded that the petitioner uploaded patta certificate issued in Form-B in favour of his father, without any succession certificate. The petitioner did not file an application before Civil Court for grant of succession. The petitioner approached the XXII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.S.No.992 of 2016 seeking injunction against Putli Begum, who died on 31.08.2017. It is pleaded that there is already a service connection in the name of Putli Begum, and therefore the question of granting second service connection in the very same premises does not arise. Granting of two service connections to the same premises is prohibited under general terms and conditions of supply, as such sought dismissal of the writ petition.
Contentions of the writ petitioner:
9. The learned counsel for petitioner argued that respondent Nos.2 to 6 have initially responded to the application filed by the petitioner for giving a power supply for 2 KW domestic category new connection vide NR901254375348 on payment of requisite charges. Accordingly, the officials belonging to respondent Nos.2 to 6 have inspected the premises belonging to the petitioners and have fixed the meter and also released the 5 RY, J WP_3402_2026 power connection. Thereafter, without any reason and without any notice said power connection was disconnected. Therefore, the petitioner approached CGRF vide CG No. 59 of 2025-26, Hyderabad Central Circle and said complaint was rejected on the ground that proper documents are not filed and that there are family disputes between the siblings with respect to ownership of the property. In that context, the learned counsel for petitioner referred to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.31824 of 2025, wherein this Court permitted to give service connection on account of the applicant being in possession of the subject property and an observation that the Civil Court may not decide the issue of ownership or possession on the basis of the service connection existing in the name of the applicant therein.
10. It is argued that in the instant case, it is seen that there was an application made by the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 6 have positively responded by fixing meter and releasing the power supply subject to payment of requisite fee. Thereafter, on account of complaint given by one Ameena Bee, respondent Nos.2 to 6, without notice and without assigning any reason, removed the meter and disconnected the power supply. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached CGRF and as the CGRF rejected his complaint, then the petitioner approached 6 RY, J WP_3402_2026 Vidyut Ombudsman and Vidyut Ombudsman dismissed the appeal on a different ground that the person, who is going to be aggrieved by the award is not present before the forum i.e., Ameena Bee is not a party to the complaint before CGRF or the appeal before Vidyut Ombudsman.
11. It is argued that the petitioner is claiming ownership over the property through his father, who was granted patta by the Government. When said patta issued by the Government is filed before the CGRF, the said document shows the origin from where the title is traced. Further, there is judgment in favour of the petitioner in O.S.No.992 of 2016, where the petitioner has sought perpetual injunction against one Putli Begum and said suit was decreed. In view of said judgment by the XXII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad in O.S.No.992 of 2016 dated 15.03.2017, the learned counsel for petitioner contends that the possession of the petitioner as well as title are proven and therefore, there are no grounds for respondent Nos.2 to 6 to disconnect the connection merely on account of a complaint given by one Ameen Bee, who claims to be sister of Putli Begum, who is defendant in the said suit in O.S.No.992 of 2016. Contentions of respondent Nos.2 to 6:
12. The learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 6 initially opposed the writ petition questioning its maintainability claiming that the 7 RY, J WP_3402_2026 petitioner has challenged only the award passed by the Vidyut Ombudsman without challenging the award passed by CGRF and therefore, sought dismissal of the writ petition. Subsequently, it is argued that one premises can have only one connection and that the premises in question already had one connection in the name of Putli Begum vide SC No.H2001858 and therefore, the question of granting a second service connection does not arise as per the general terms and conditions of supply issued by the Electricity Regulatory Commission.
13. In that context, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 6 relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikratan Das1, wherein guidelines are issued, while issuing a Writ of Certiorari, relevant portion of the judgment is extracted and produced below.
"64. Thus, from the various decisions referred to above, we have no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that a writ of certiorari is a high prerogative writ and should not be issued on mere asking. For the issue of a writ of certiorari, the party concerned has to make out a definite case for the same and is not a matter of course. To put it pithily, certiorari shall issue to correct errors of jurisdiction, that is to say, absence, excess or failure to exercise and also when in the exercise of undoubted jurisdiction, there has been illegality. It shall also issue to correct an error in the decision or determination itself, if it is an error manifest on the face of the proceedings. By its exercise, only a patent error can be corrected but not also a wrong decision. It should be well remembered at the cost of repetition that certiorari is not appellate but only supervisory.1
2023 INSC 733 8 RY, J WP_3402_2026
65. A writ of certiorari, being a high prerogative writ, is issued by a superior court in respect of the exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial functions by another authority when the contention is that the exercising authority had no jurisdiction or exceeded the jurisdiction. It cannot be denied that the tribunals or the authorities concerned in this batch of appeals had the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. However, the argument would be that the tribunals had acted arbitrarily and illegally and that they had failed to give proper findings on the facts and circumstances of the case. We may only say that while adjudicating a writ-application for a writ of certiorari, the court is not sitting as a court of appeal against the order of the tribunals to test the legality thereof with a view to reach a different conclusion."
14. It is argued that a Writ of Certiorari can be issued only in rarest of rare cases. Only when there is exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial function by another authority and that the exercising authority had no jurisdiction or exceeded the jurisdiction. While adjudicating the writ application for a Writ of Certiorari, the Court may not sit as a Court of appeal against the order of the Tribunal to test the legality thereof with a view to reach a different conclusion.
Findings of the Court:
15. When the petitioner's case is examined, it is seen that the petitioner is claiming to be owner and possessor of land to an extent of 36 square yards in plot Nos.69 and 96 in Survey Nos.71 and 72 of Baghlingampally Taluk, Hyderabad and the said claim is made on the basis of the patta allotted by the Government to the father of the petitioner vide patta certificate bearing 9 RY, J WP_3402_2026 No.F1/9308/1980. It is also case of the petitioner that he approached the Civil Court by filing O.S.No.992 of 2016 to declare him as legal heir of the deceased father and said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 15.03.2017. Since the petitioner was declared as legal heir, he applied for electricity supply and was granted the same. Thereafter, for reasons not known, the power supply was disconnected.
16. The above averments are partly correct and partly incorrect. The averments of the writ petition are partly correct to the extent that the petitioner is claiming title and possession on the basis of patta certificate issued in the favour of his father i.e., under patta certificate bearing No.F1/9308/1980. The averments about succeeding to the estate of the deceased-father are false. Further, the suit in O.S.No.992 of 2016 was filed for grant of perpetual injunction, but not declaration as legal heir of the deceased-father. Perpetual injunction is sought against Putli Begum, who is the petitioner's sister. The said suit was filed for grant of perpetual injunction for land which was to an extent of 12 square yards only. Currently in this writ petition, the petitioner is claiming to be owner and possessor of 36 square yards of land and the same is not supported by the judgment and decree in O.S.No.992 of 2016 dated 15.03.2017. 10
RY, J WP_3402_2026
17. It is also a point to be noted that the subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.992 of 2016 is house bearing No.2-4-113/12 Maulana Azad Nagar, Nimboliadda, Kachiguda, Hyderabad, to an extent of 12 square yards constructed in plinth area of 140 square feet. In the present petition, the petitioner is seeking electricity connection to 36 square yards of land in plot Nos.69 and 96.
18. In any case, it appears there was dispute between the petitioner herein and his sibling Putli Begum and therefore, a suit for perpetual injunction was filed and the same was decreed ex parte as the defendant Putli Begum did not appear before the Civil Court.
19. Be that as it may, the premises in question already has one service connection in the name of Putli Begum. The said fact shows that Putli Begum was in occupation of the subject property and she obtained power supply and is enjoying the same. Thereafter, the petitioner herein submitted an application and paid an amount of Rs.3,625/- on 15.05.2025 and a new connection was released in favour of the petitioner.
20. The fact pattern gives rise to a question as to why the petitioner who claims to be owner and possessor from the year 2016 did not obtain any service connection till the year 2025. Further, no reference is made to the alleged dispute with his sister. While filing the writ petition, the petitioner 11 RY, J WP_3402_2026 had knowledge about the complaint lodged by his sister during proceedings before CGRF and the Vidyut Ombudsman. However, the details of such disputes are not revealed. Since there was dispute between siblings, respondent Nos.2 to 6 have disconnected the electricity connection. The Vidyut Ombudsman has taken objection to the petitioner not showing Ameena Bee as a party to the proceedings and directed the petitioner to approach appropriate forums.
21. It is seen that there is misrepresentation by the petitioner with respect to the extent of land for which electricity connection is sought in the writ petition, as compared to the extent of land for which perpetual injunction is sought in O.S.No.992 of 2016 before the XXII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Further, there is total misrepresentation with respect to nature of the suit in O.S.No.992 of 2016, which was filed seeking perpetual injunction by the petitioner with respect to 12 square yards of land in Maulana Azad Nagar, Nimboliadda, Kachiguda.
22. In the instant case, i.e., the writ petition, the petitioner falsely pleaded that the suit in O.S.No.992 of 2016 is filed to declare him as legal heir of his deceased father and that said suit is decreed by declaring the petitioner as legal heir. The writ petition averments are nothing but a blatant misrepresentation of facts in the light of the contents of judgment in 12 RY, J WP_3402_2026 O.S.No.992 of 2016. The said suit was filed against Putli Begum, and there was no contest as such, the suit was decreed ex parte. In the current writ petition or the complaint before the CGRF and appeal before the Vidyut Ombudsman, the person who made objection for release of electricity connection is not even made as a party. It appears that the petitioner has no intention of putting the party on notice, who has objection, for release of electricity connection in his favour. Such conduct can only give rise to an adverse inference with respect to motives of the petitioner.
23. Lastly, when the general terms and conditions of supply laid down guidelines that there shall be only one connection for one premises and already one connection is in existence in the name of Putli Begum. The petitioner has to show proper ground for granting a second connection to the same premises. The patta certificate filed shows the petitioner's father was allotted land and the same cannot come to the aid of the petitioner herein since the petitioner's sister already obtained an electricity connection to the same premises and therefore, the petitioner has to show reason for grant of a second connection to the same premises. Irrespective of the fact that a suit for perpetual injunction with respect to 12 square yards of subject land has been decreed in favour of the petitioner in O.S.No.992 of 2016, on account of suppression of facts and misrepresentation of facts in 13 RY, J WP_3402_2026 filing the writ petition, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief sought for. On account of misrepresentation of facts, the petitioner is liable to pay costs.
24. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.1000/- payable by the petitioner to the High Court Legal Services Committee within 10 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
__________________ RENUKA YARA, J Date: 29.04.2026 GVR 14 RY, J WP_3402_2026 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION No.3402 of 2026 W 29th DAY OF APRIL, 2026 GVR 15