IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

WRIT PETITION No.19123 of 2025

15.12.2025

Between:

Tanveer Fatima

…Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana & four others

…Respondents

ORDER:

Heard Sri N. Manik Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned

Government Pleader for Energy, for respondent Nos.1 and 2; Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL, for respondent Nos.3 and 4

and Sri V. Chinna Raj, learned counsel for respondent no.5.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner claims ownership and possession of the property admeasuring 100 square yards in survey No.428/1 situated at Shafi Nagar, Moulali, Medchal–Malkajgiri District, based on a notarized agreement of sale dated 17.01.2025. He submits that the petitioner applied for a new domestic electricity service connection and paid the requisite charges along with necessary documents but the same was rejected by respondent No.4 vide proceedings dated 03.04.2025 on the ground that a court case is pending. He submits that the pending civil suit relates to other portions of land belonging to the vendor

and has no bearing on the petitioner’s property. He further submits that that electricity is a basic necessity and rejection of the petitioner’s application is arbitrary and illegal.

3. Learned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL submits that the writ petition is misconceived and not maintainable. He submits that several litigations are pending with respect to land in survey Nos.428/1 and 429/1, including criminal and civil proceedings, and multiple persons are claiming ownership over the said lands. He submits that the petitioner is only an agreement of sale holder and does not possess any valid title or ownership documents. He submits that as per Clause 5.2.2 of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply, production of valid ownership documents is mandatory for grant of a new electricity connection. In the absence of such documents and in view of pending disputes relating to the property, the respondents were justified in rejecting the petitioner’s application.

4. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the material available on record. It is evident from the record that the petitioner is claiming electricity connection solely on the basis of a notarized agreement of sale, which does not confer any title or ownership rights. It is also not in dispute that multiple litigations are pending with regard to the land in Survey Nos.428/1 and 429/1 and that there are rival claims over the property. In such circumstances, the electricity authorities are justified in insisting upon valid ownership documents in accordance with the General Terms and Conditions of Supply. The rejection of the petitioner’s application cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal, nor does it violate any fundamental or legal right of the Petitioner. No case is made out for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________________ NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J Dated 15.12.2025 myk