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 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.

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 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