Introduction:

In a decisive ruling aimed at curbing rampant unauthorized constructions, the Telangana High Court, presided by Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka, has refused to direct the Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited (TGSPDCL) to provide electricity to a multi-storied building in Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad, in the absence of an occupancy certificate (OC) from the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC). The petitioner, represented by Advocate Sri Mohd. Habeebuddin, sought relief by citing several past High Court orders where electricity was granted on the undertaking that the OC would be submitted later. However, TGSPDCL, represented by Standing Counsel Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, opposed the plea, highlighting repeated misuse of such relaxations by building owners who, after obtaining electricity, failed to produce the OC. In a departure from its earlier leniency, the court held that no electricity connection shall be provided without first producing an OC, citing both public interest and the binding precedent set by the Supreme Court in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (2024). The court concluded by directing the petitioner to obtain the OC from GHMC first, after which TGSPDCL could consider the request for power connection.

Arguments of the Petitioner:

The petitioner, owner of a multi-storey building in Himayath Nagar, argued that he had approached TGSPDCL for a new electricity connection, but his application was rejected on the ground that he had not submitted the occupancy certificate from GHMC. The petitioner relied on several previous High Court orders in which similarly placed property owners had been granted power supply, subject to their undertaking to submit the OC within a stipulated time. In those earlier cases, the courts had allowed a pragmatic approach — permitting temporary electricity supply while safeguarding municipal compliance through post-supply submission of the OC. The petitioner sought a similar direction, offering to submit a written undertaking that the OC would be provided within a prescribed period, failing which TGSPDCL could initiate legal action. His counsel emphasized that electricity is a basic necessity, and denial would cause severe hardship to occupants and hinder lawful enjoyment of the property.

Arguments of the Respondent (TGSPDCL):

TGSPDCL, represented by Standing Counsel Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, strongly opposed the plea. They contended that earlier relaxations granted by the court had been grossly misused by property owners, who, after securing electricity, consistently failed to submit the OC despite repeated reminders. The distribution company cited its own letter dated 07.01.2025 to the petitioner, clearly stating that no service connection shall be released for multi-storied buildings or complexes over 10 meters in height unless an occupancy certificate from the competent municipal authority is produced. TGSPDCL argued that insisting on an OC before releasing electricity is not merely procedural — it is a statutory safeguard to ensure buildings comply with approved plans and safety regulations. Granting electricity without OC encourages illegal constructions, violates planning laws, and endangers public safety.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka acknowledged that earlier orders had indeed allowed electricity supply based on an undertaking to submit the OC later. However, the court noted that the widespread misuse of such leniency had led to mushrooming of unauthorized constructions across Hyderabad. Builders often obtained initial plan approvals and then illegally constructed additional floors, later seeking regularization under special schemes. This practice undermined urban planning, safety norms, and the authority of municipal bodies.

The court observed:

“This Court inclines to take a slight departure, for, several buildings are mushrooming after getting approval for a particular plan, thereafter giving a go-by, additional floors are being raised unscrupulously… This Court cannot be a mute spectator for such unceremonious procedure and does not want to encourage this type of activity in the interest of society at large.”

The High Court placed significant reliance on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (2024), where the apex court had categorically held:

“All the necessary service connections, such as electricity, water supply, sewerage connection, etc., shall be given… only after the production of the completion/occupation certificate.”

The Supreme Court had also clarified that even after the issuance of a completion certificate, any subsequent violations contrary to the sanctioned plan must result in immediate legal action against the builder, owner, occupant, and any official responsible for wrongful certification.

Following this precedent, the Telangana High Court ruled that production of the OC is a mandatory precondition for release of power supply. It emphasized that granting electricity without OC effectively rewards illegal construction and frustrates the enforcement of municipal laws.

Accordingly, the court disposed of the petition, directing the petitioner to first approach GHMC for issuance of the OC. Only after production of this certificate would TGSPDCL consider the request for electricity connection in accordance with law. The judgment sends a clear message — the court will no longer shield unauthorized constructions under the guise of interim relief.