IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

WRIT PETITION No.25376 of 2025

03^rdDECEMBER, 2025

Between:

D. Sundeep Varma

… Petitioner

AND

1. The State of Telangana, and others

… Respondents

ORDER:

The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of Plot No.127

(part), admeasuring 176 square yards, in Survey No.13/2 of Seetharampur locality, Karimnagar Town & District, vide a Deed of Exchange document No.5542 of 2009 dated 21.08.2009, entered into between the petitioner and one Mr. B. Ram Murthy Shastry (alias Rama Murthy Shashtry) wherein the plot No.123 was exchanged for Plot No.127. It is stated that he laid a tin shed in hi plot, but due to complaints by local politicians, the municipality issued notices to the petitioner, directing to remove the structures, and the petitioner had voluntarily removed the structures from the plot. It is stated that when the local municipal authorities tried to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plot, the petitioner filed W.P.No.16019 of 2025, and the Court was pleased to grant

an interim order dated 13.06.2025 directing the municipal authorities not to interfere with the petitioner’s possession over the property.

1.1 It is stated that the petitioner obtained building permission from the authorities concerned, and also applied for a new electricity connection under commercial category, and the said application is pending with the authorities. It is the grievance of the petitioner that he came to know that the authorities are delaying his application for electricity connection at the influence of one Rangu Mahender, who is the employee of respondent No.2.

1.2 Petitioner therefore assails the action of respondents No.2 to 6 in not considering his application for electricity connection under commercial category as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.

2. Heard Mr. G. Bhasker Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Mr.A. Chandra Shaker, learned Standing Counsel for TGNPDCL. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while making submission in line with the writ affidavit, essentially contend that he obtained building permission as per law, and also applied for electricity connection under commercial category, and the respondent authorities are unduly delaying his application by coming under the influence of local politicians and one Mr. Rangu Mahender who is an employee of respondent No.2; and therefore the act of respondent-authorities in delaying the sanctioning of new electricity connection is arbitrary and illegal.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-TGNPDCL, based on the counter affidavit, would essentially contend that objections have been received from the local residents and technical concerns were identified during the site inspection. It is also contended that as per the objections raised by the local residents, the petitioner has encroached and obstructed public access by violating the set-back norms, and that these issues require legal scrutiny. Learned Standing Counsel refers to paragraphs No.8 and 9 of the counter affidavit, wherein it was stated as follows:

“8. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner ha relied upon the interim order passed in W.P.No.16019 of 2025, wherein this Hon’ble Court directed that there shall be no interference with the petitioner’s possession of the subject property. However, it is submitted that the said interim relief is limited in cope and does not confer any automatic entitlement to utility services such as electricity connection. The grant of electricity service is governed by technical feasibility, safety norms, and procedural compliance under the applicable regulations of the Telangana State Northern Power Distribution Company Limited (TSNPDCL). The presence of line across the petitioner’s site, unresolved objections from neighboring residents, and pending legal opinion regarding the site’s el