ORDER : Nagesh Bheemapaka, J. The notice dated 19.09.2024 issued by the respondent-TGSPDCL with regard to disconnection of electricity supply, consequent to the GHMC letter dated 18.09.2024 stating that the properties of the petitioners in Guttala Begumpet Village fall within the Full Tank Level (FTL) of Medi Kunta lake, is challenged in common in these writ petitions. For the sake of discussion, the averments in W.P.No.26102 of 2024 are referred. 1.1 The brief facts of the case, as per the writ affidavit in W.P.No.26102 of 2024, are that petitioner No. 1 purchased 240 square yards in Plot No. 82 through a registered sale deed (No. 1687 of 2009) on 7.4.2009, while petitioner No. 2 purchased an adjacent 240 square yards in Plot No. 83 through sale deed No. 1688 of 2009 on the same date. This land was formally brought into the regulatory fold when the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) accepted their application under the Land Regulation Scheme, issuing Proceedings dated 23.1.2009. Subsequently, upon an application made by the petitioners, a formal building permission was granted by the GHMC, vide Permit dated 25.3.2021, for which they paid a fee of Rs. 3,42,591. This permission, valid until 25.3.2027, was used to construct their home, and they obtained electricity connection USC No. 111507992, for which they claim to have paid all bills for the past three years. 1.2 On 19.9.2024, the petitioners received the impugned notice from Respondent No. 5. Petitioners state that this notice was issued based on instructions from the Deputy Commissioner of the GHMC contained in a letter dated 18.9.2024. The GHMC's assertion, which forms the basis for the electricity disconnection threat, is that the petitioners' building on Plot Nos. 82 and 83 in Sy. No. 32 of Guttala Begumpet Village falls within the Full Tank Level (FTL) or Buffer Zone of the Medi Kunta lake. 1.3 The petitioners vehemently dispute this allegation and contend that a joint inspection was conducted by the Revenue, Irrigation, and Survey authorities on 17.9.2021, covering Sy. Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, 32, and 33, and the inspection concluded that there was no water body (Medi Kunta) present in Sy.No.32. 1.3 The petitioners vehemently dispute this allegation and contend that a joint inspection was conducted by the Revenue, Irrigation, and Survey authorities on 17.9.2021, covering Sy. Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, 32, and 33, and the inspection concluded that there was no water body (Medi Kunta) present in Sy.No.32. Furthermore, the petitioners cite a report from the Deputy Inspector of Survey, Ranga Reddy district, dated 27.8.2020, which confirmed no physical water body existed on the ground except for a small pond, and noted that while a kunta was marked on the 1976 village map, it was not recorded as such in the 1950 Sethwar land records, where the land was classified as Sarlari. The petitioners also reference a 1954-55 land record that classified the land as "Kunta venaka polam-Patta", and that this collective evidence was endorsed by the thenDistrict Collector of Ranga Reddy District in a letter dated 8.10.2021, which requested the HMDA to take further action based on these findings. The petitioners allege that the Deputy Commissioner, GHMC, acted unilaterally and without verifying the records. They further contend that the electricity department officials (Respondents No. 4 and 5) acted without application of mind by blindly following the GHMC's directive. The petitioners contend that the GHMC has no statutory authority to command the electricity department, whose actions must be governed solely by the Electricity Act. They further contend that no direct notice or proceeding has ever been initiated against them by the GHMC regarding this land issue, thereby the sudden disconnection threat is a violation of due process. 2. A counter affidavit is filed by the respondent-Assistant Divisional Engineer of TGSPDCL, contending that the petitioner has held an electricity service connection, bearing SC No. A9064004, since it was released on 22.6.2018, for the property in question. The GHMC issued a letter dated 18.9.2024, addressed to the Assistant Engineer of TGSPDCL, informing the electricity department that the petitioner's building on Plot Nos. 82 and 83 in Sy. No. 32 of Guttala Begumpet Village falls within the Full Tank Level (FTL) or Buffer Zone of the Medikunta lake, as per the FTL map published on the HMDA lakes website, and that the petitioners had obtained their original building permissions by suppressing and misrepresenting the facts, and directed the respondents to disconnect the electricity connection to the building. No. 32 of Guttala Begumpet Village falls within the Full Tank Level (FTL) or Buffer Zone of the Medikunta lake, as per the FTL map published on the HMDA lakes website, and that the petitioners had obtained their original building permissions by suppressing and misrepresenting the facts, and directed the respondents to disconnect the electricity connection to the building. In response to the GHMC letter, the 5 th Respondent issued the impugned notice dated 19.9.2024, informing the petitioners of the disconnection within 24 hours. 2.1 The respondents contend that the TGSPDCL was duty-bound to aid in the implementation of government policy, specifically the protection of water bodies. It is contended that the writ petition is liable for dismissal due to the non-joinder GHMC which is a necessary party. It is contended that the petitioner obtained interim orders against the TGSPDCLwithout making GHMC that issued the letter dated 18.09.2024, as a party respondent, and if the interim order is continued, it will prevent the authorities from fulfilling their obligation to comply with the directives of other government corporations, thereby frustrating the public policy of preservation of ecologically sensitive zones, and therefore the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 3 . Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned disconnection notice dated 19.9.2024, which threatens to cut off the electricity supply to the petitioners' residence within a mere 24 hours, is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of their fundamental rights. It is contended that the petitioners are the lawful owners of Plot Nos. 82 and 83 in Sy. No. 32, possessing valid title from 7.4.2009, a sanctioned Land Regulation Scheme from 23.1.2009, and a building permit from 25.3.2021 for which a fee of Rs. 3,42,591 was paid. It is argued that the sole basis for the notice—a directive from the Deputy Commissioner, GHMC, alleging the property falls within the FTL/Buffer Zone of Medi Kunta—is factually incorrect and issued by disregarding the joint inspection report dated 17.9.2021, and a report from the Deputy Inspector of Survey dated 27.8.2020, both of which conclusively established no water body exists on the land. Furthermore, the electricity authorities have acted without application of mind and in contravention of the Electricity Act, 2003, by implementing an illegal directive from an external agency that possesses no statutory power to command them, and the petitioners were denied the opportunity to be heard. 4. Mr. Furthermore, the electricity authorities have acted without application of mind and in contravention of the Electricity Act, 2003, by implementing an illegal directive from an external agency that possesses no statutory power to command them, and the petitioners were denied the opportunity to be heard. 4. Mr. N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the TGSPDCL, contends that the impugned notice dated 19.9.2024, was issued solely in response to an official letter from the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) dated 18.9.2024, which categorically stated that the petitioner's property in Plot Nos. 82 and 83 of Sy. No. 32 falls within the FTL/Buffer Zone of the Medikunta and that the petitioner had obtained building permissions by suppressing and misrepresenting the facts. It is further contended that the GHMC—the originator of the directive and the entity whose policy is being implemented—has not been impleaded. Learned Standing Counsel contends that the respondents are duty-bound to aid the government departments in enforcing public policy, particularly concerning the protection of ecologically sensitive lake zones. 5. Having considered the respective contentions and perused the record, it may be noted that it is the specific contention of the respondent authorities borne out by the records that the construction permissions were obtained by the petitioners by suppressing and misrepresenting the facts about the property's location within the Full Tank Level (FTL) or Buffer Zone of the Medikunta, as per the authenticated FTL map on the HMDA website. The petitioner’s reliance on a joint inspection report from 17.9.2021, and other historical documents does not counter the respondent's specific contention of a subsequent and definitive determination made by the GHMC on 18.09.2024.The petitioners contention that the TGSPDCL acted ultra vires based on the communication of GHMC cannot be countenanced as the departments are duty bound to cooperate and act in unison in the implementation of public policy, particularly concerning the protection of ecologically sensitive zones. The TGSPDCL, as a State instrumentality, is expected to aid the government departments in implementing the policies. Further, the Electricity Act, 2003, under which the respondent- TGSPDCLoperates, does not operate in isolation, unconcerned with other statutory public policies. Furthermore, the petitioners have not chosen to implead the GHMC, which is the entity that made the factual determination about the subject land as falling under protective zone, as a party respondent, and laid a challenge against the implementing agency. Furthermore, the petitioners have not chosen to implead the GHMC, which is the entity that made the factual determination about the subject land as falling under protective zone, as a party respondent, and laid a challenge against the implementing agency. There is no plausible reason forthcoming as to why the petitioners have not made GHMC a party to this writ petition. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad issued the following directions: (iv) All the necessary service connections, such as, Electricity, water supply, sewerage connection, etc., shall be given by the service provider/Board to the buildings only after the production of the completion/occupation certificate. (v) Even after issuance of completion certificate, deviation / violation if any contrary to the planning permission brought to the notice of the authority immediate steps be taken by the said authority concerned, in accordance with law, against the builder / owner / occupant; and the official, who is responsible for issuance of wrongful completion /occupation certificate shall be proceeded departmentally forthwith. (vi) No permission /licence to conduct any business/trade must be given by any authorities including local bodies of States/Union Territories in any unauthorized building irrespective of it being residential or commercial building. (vii) The development must be in conformity with the zonal plan and usage. Any modification to such zonal plan and usage must be taken by strictly following the rules in place and in consideration of the larger public interest and the impact on the environment.” 7. In the present writ petitions, the impugned disconnection was based on the GHMC's letter, which clearly stated that the lands fall within the FTL zone and the petitioners have suppressed and misrepresented the facts to obtain the construction permission, and the said letter was issued by the competent authority. Furthermore, the TGSPDCL, as the entity controlling the electricity supply, is competent to issue the impugned notice in implementing the policy of protecting ecological zones, and accordingly they served the impugned notice dated 19.9.2024, clearly stating the reason for the proposed electricity disconnection. In the light of the judgment in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya (supra),the writ petitionsare liable to be dismissed with costs. 8. In the light of the judgment in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya (supra),the writ petitionsare liable to be dismissed with costs. 8. Accordingly, the writ petitionsare dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each, to be paid by the petitioners to the Telangana High Court Advocates Association, and furnish the receipt of payment in the Registrywithin two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.