IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18852 of 2002 Between : Mohd. Moinuddin Ali S/o Late Mohd. Ahmed Ali R/o H.No. 11-4-644, A.c. Guards, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Asst. City Planner Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad Circle-IV office Khairtabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Managing Director, Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Khairtabad, Hyderabad. 3 A.P. TRANSCO, rep.by its Managing Director Vidyuth Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No. 1 in issuing the impugned letters to the 2nd and 3rd respondents vide Nos. 387/ACP/C4/2002-892 and 893 dt. 24-7-2002 as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and ultravires the provisions of H.M.C. Act, 1956 and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.NYAYAPATHI PRASHANT Counsel for the Respondents : R.RADHA KRISHNA REDDY(SC FOR GHMC,SNCZONE) The Court made the following : ORDER : There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Heard learned counsel appearing for the 1st and 3rd respondents. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the validity of the impugned proceedings, dated 24.07.2002, issued in Letter Nos. 387/ACP/C4/2002-892 and 893, by the 1st respondent, addressed to the 2nd and 3rd respondents. 3. By the aforementioned proceedings, the 1st respondent/ Assistant City Planner, Circle No.IV of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, has instructed the 2nd and 3rd respondents not to provide electricity and drainage connections to the premises bearing Nos. 11-4-644 and 645, situated at A.C.Guards, Hyderabad. The aforesaid letters are issued on the ground that the petitioner has obtained permission for construction of building consisting of stilt plus 5 upper floors of residential flats, vide permit No.428/55, but however, the petitioner did not start the construction within the specified time as per byelaw No.7(1) of the Building Byelaws framed under the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. On the ground that the constructions are being made by the petitioner illegally, directions were issued by the 1st respondent to the 2nd and 3rd respondents not to provide water and drainage connections to the petitioner’s premises. 4. In this writ petition, precisely, it is the case of the petitioner that there is no jurisdiction conferred on the 1st respondent for issuing instructions to the 2nd and 3rd respondents, vide the impugned letters, under the scheme of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, the Building Byelaws made thereunder, and also under the provisions of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board Act, 1989. 5. At the stage of admission, this Court, by an order, dated 27th of September 2002, granted interim directions suspending the proceedings, dated 24th July 2002, and the said orders are in force all along. Though the writ petition is of the year 2002, no counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the 1st and 2nd respondents, however, counter affidavit is filed by the Assistant Divisional Engineer (Operations), Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Company Limited, on behalf of the 3rd respondent, stating that the competent authority i.e. the 3rd respondent has already approved the request for release of electricity connection to the apartment of the petitioner. Further, it is submitted that on deposit of required deposit, works were executed and Service Connection is released and the respective flat owners are consuming power by paying the necessary consumption charges. Though it is specifically pleaded by the petitioner that there is no jurisdiction to issue such instructions under the scheme of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act and also under the provisions of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board Act, 1989, inspite of the same, no counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the 1st and 2nd respondents, denying such allegation. Further, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent did not bring to the notice of this Court, any provision, which empowers the 1st respondent to issue the impugned instructions under the provisions of either the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, or under the provisions of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board Act, 1989. In that view of the matter, it appears that the instructions issued by the 1st respondent through the impugned letters, are issued without any authority or jurisdiction. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the orders under challenge are set aside. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 10th June 2009 ajr