MOHAMMED ARIF RIZWAN VS. STATE OF TELANGANA WRIT PETITION NO. 22672 OF 2025:

DATE: 31/07/2025

COURT: High Court of Telegana

BENCH: Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka

FACTS:

The petitioner, claiming ownership of property at Municipal No. 3-6-744/1 & 744/1/A to F in Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad, approached the High Court seeking a direction to the Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited (TGSPDCL) to release electricity supply without insisting on an occupancy certificate from the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC). The petitioner stated that the building, consisting of a stilt plus five upper floors was constructed in accordance with an approved plan, and all requisite fees for the electricity connection were paid. TGSPDCL had sanctioned the connection on 07.01.2025 but refused to release supply due to non-submission of the occupancy certificate. The petitioner argued that such a certificate was not mandatory and relied on previous High Court orders where power supply was granted subject to an undertaking to furnish the certificate within a stipulated time.

The respondents opposed the plea, contending that in many similar cases, parties had failed to furnish the occupancy certificate after securing electricity supply, thereby exploiting earlier court orders. TGSPDCL relied on its 07.01.2025 communication to the petitioner, which clearly stated that service connections for multi-storeyed buildings exceeding 10 meters in height would not be released without the occupancy certificate. GHMC also participated in the hearing. The Court noted growing instances where builders deviated from sanctioned plans, raised unauthorized constructions, and later sought regularization, making it difficult for civic authorities to enforce compliance. Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (2024), which mandated production of an occupancy or completion certificate before granting utility connections, the Court emphasized the need to curb such misuse.

ISSUES:

The main issue before the court was whether the Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited (TGSPDCL) could refuse to release electricity supply to the petitioner’s multi-storeyed building in Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad, on the ground that an occupancy certificate from the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) had not been produced, despite the petitioner’s claim that such a certificate was not mandatory and reliance on earlier High Court orders allowing conditional supply.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner must first obtain the necessary occupancy certificate from the municipal authorities before TGSPDCL can release the electricity connection. It directed that only upon production of the certificate should the respondent consider the application, strictly in accordance with the law.

The court noted that TGSPDCL had expressly communicated, via its letter dated 07.01.2025, that no service connection would be provided to multi-storeyed buildings exceeding 10 meters in height without an occupancy certificate. The petitioner had not challenged this condition and thus could not bypass it through a writ petition. While the petitioner relied on previous High Court orders allowing provisional power supply upon an undertaking to submit the certificate later, the court departed from this approach. It emphasized that such relaxations had led to widespread abuse, with many building owners failing to furnish the certificate after obtaining power supply. The court highlighted the problem of developers exceeding sanctioned plans, constructing illegal additional floors, and later seeking regularization, thereby undermining urban planning and civic regulation. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (2024), the court reiterated that all essential service connections must be granted only upon production of completion or occupancy certificates to ensure compliance with building norms, environmental considerations, and public interest. This stricter approach was deemed necessary to deter unauthorized constructions and protect urban governance integrity.

ANALYSIS:

This case underscores the judiciary’s increasing emphasis on strict compliance with municipal regulations before granting essential utility connections to multi-storeyed buildings. The petitioner sought electricity supply for a completed building without producing the mandatory occupancy certificate, citing earlier High Court precedents that permitted provisional supply subject to undertakings. However, the court refused to extend this leniency, recognizing that such concessions had been misused by builders who later ignored compliance obligations. By aligning its stance with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (2024), the court reinforced that the occupancy certificate is a crucial safeguard ensuring buildings adhere to sanctioned plans, safety codes, and environmental norms. The decision also highlights the growing tension between development interests and regulatory enforcement in urban areas like Hyderabad, where unauthorized constructions have become a systemic challenge.

The judgment is notable for its strong policy reasoning and its rejection of a purely equitable or case-by-case relief model in favour of a uniform, rule-based approach. By insisting that TGSPDCL strictly enforce its condition, no service connection without an occupancy certificate, the court sought to close a loophole that had allowed rampant violations of planning laws. It also implicitly recognized the interconnected role of municipal authorities and utility providers in urban governance, framing utility access not as an unconditional right but as contingent upon lawful compliance. The ruling thus serves as a precedent that could significantly limit the ability of builders to sidestep post-construction approvals, potentially reshaping how infrastructure agencies and courts handle similar disputes in the future.