SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(AP) 235

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J.
G. Lakshmi, W/o G. Srinivasulu - Appellant 
Vs.
The A.P. Southern Power Distribution Company Limited, Rep. by its Superintending Engineer, Dargamitta, Nellore - Respondent 
WRIT PETITION NO: 19608 OF 2018
Decided On : 13-02-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : K MOHAN RAMI REDDY
For the Respondent: VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA SC FOR APSPDCL

A writ of mandamus is discretionary and cannot be granted if the petitioner suppresses material facts or fails to establish a legal right.

Headnote:

(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ petitions for electricity connection - Petitioners claimed ownership of land and sought connection, but were denied due to pending civil suits and allegations of fraud - Respondents contended that petitioners approached the court with unclean hands, suppressing material facts - Court emphasized the necessity of full disclosure and the principle that a writ of mandamus is discretionary and cannot be granted if the petitioner has not established a legal right. (Paras 3, 10, 18, 30, 41)

(B) Writ of Mandamus - Nature and scope - A writ of mandamus is not a matter of right but is discretionary, requiring the petitioner to demonstrate a legal right to the performance of a duty by the respondent. (Paras 20, 22, 28)

(C) Suppression of Material Facts - The court held that suppression of material facts by the petitioners disqualified them from seeking relief, as it undermines the integrity of the judicial process. (Paras 30, 39, 40)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, claiming ownership of land, sought an electricity connection but faced opposition from unofficial respondents who alleged fraud and pending civil suits regarding the land.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioners suppressed material facts and misled the court, leading to the dismissal of the writ petitions.

Issues: The main issues included the petitioners' ownership claims, the validity of their application for electricity connection, and the implications of pending civil suits.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioners' failure to disclose relevant facts and their unclean hands barred them from relief under Article 226, emphasizing the discretionary nature of writs.

Result: Writ petitions are dismissed.

ORDER:-

1. As the issue involved in all the four writ petitions is inter-related, all these writ petitions are taken up together and are disposed of through this common order.

2. W.P.Nos.19608, 19995 of 2018 is filed by one Smt. Gupi Lakshmi Devi, w/o Srinivasulu; W.P.No. 20074 of 2018 is filed by Smt. Gupi Lakshmi Devi and O. Nagendra Kumar; whereas, W.P.No.19926 of 2018 is filed by one Onteru Nagendra Kumar s/o Ramakrishnaiah.

3. For better appreciation of the case, facts in W.P.No.20074 of 2018 are taken for consideration. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , to direct the respondents to receive/accept the demanded amounts from the petitioners for grant of electricity power connection to the petitioners lands in Sy.Nos.1374 and 1373 of Varini Village, Vidavalur Mandal and grant electricity power connection to the petitioners as per their application dated 11.05.2018.

4. Originally, W.P.No.20074 of 2018 was filed by Smt. Gupi Lakshmi Devi and O. Nagendra Kumar against Respondent Nos.1 & 3 – APSPDCL. Later, the unofficial respondents i.e Respondent Nos.4 & 5 were impleaded as party respondents vide orders of this Court in I.A.No.2 of 2018 dated 02.12.2024.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that, Petitioner Nos.1 & 2 who are sister and brother, are owners and possessors of land in Sy.Nos.1374 and 1373 of Varini Village, having purchased the same under registered sale deeds dated 03.09.2011 and 17.03.2014 bearing Document No.4 of 2012 and Document No.3717 of 2014 respectively from the original owners. Since then, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the subject lands. The petitioners submitted an application for grant of electricity connection to the respondents on 11.05.2018 by paying requisite fee. The respondents have generated online demand demanding the petitioners to pay an amount of Rs.86,170/- each. Inspite of the petitioners attempt to pay the fees, the respondents are not receiving the amount for the reasons best known to them. Challenging the inaction of the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in not providing electricity connection, the present writ petition is filed.

6. On behalf of APSPDCL, Respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit, denying material allegations. It is submitted that, the petitioners have not submitted their applications along with required documents and the proof of payment of estimated received for amount till date. It is submitted that the petitioners have approached this Hon‟ble Court with unclean hands and without disclosing the correct facts and trying to mislead this High Court. Hence, requested to dismiss the writ petition.

7. The unofficial respondents/Respondent Nos.4 & 5 filed counter affidavit denying material allegations. Their main contentions are as follows:

a) The writ petitioners have played fraud in filing the writ petition with distortion of facts. The property described under the sale deed dated 03.09.2011 falls within the boundaries of sale deeds dated 25.10.2010 and 14.03.2012 of the unofficial respondents. As per the sale deeds dated 17.03.2014, there is only reference of Sy.No.1373/1 only but not 1373.

b) An extent of Ac.2-00 out of Ac.8-06 1 ½ cents on the northern said portion in Sy.No.1374 of Varini Village was purchased by Madhaluru Venkataratnamma under registered sale deed dated 24.04.1949 vide Doc.No.1880 of 1949 from Amudala Ramaiah. Respondent No.5 purchased the said land of an extent of Ac.0-66 1/3 cents out of Ac.2-00 under registered sale deed dated 25.10.2010 vide Document No.972/2010. The remaining land of an extent of Ac.1-33 2/3 was registered in faovur of Respondent No.4 under sale deed dated 14.03.2012 vide Document No.166/2012. Thereafter, Respondent Nos.4 & 5 have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective lands.

c) Respondent No.5 purchased land of an extent of Ac.1-00 from one Pudi Ramanamma and Ac.4-06 ½ cents from P. Srinivasulu Reddy & others under registered sale deeds dated 25.10.2010 and 28.01.2013 respe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top