Remanded

P K Rajasekhar Rao v. Eastern Power Distribution Company of Ap Ltd.

Andhra Pradesh HC21 Jul 2022WP/4377/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the 3rd respondent's order disconnecting the petitioner's power supply after finding a violation of natural justice. The order was passed without considering submitted explanations or materials and without hearing the petitioner, contrary to earlier directions.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside; the matter is remanded to the 3rd respondent to pass a detailed reasoned order within six weeks after giving due opportunity of hearing.

P K Rajasekhar Rao Vs Eastern Power… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.4377 of 2019

¶4

ORDER:

¶5

Paluri Kumar Rajasekhar Rao … Petitioner

¶6

And

¶7

Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, represented by its Chairman and Managing Director, Visakhapatnam and 4 others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.Mangena Sree Rama Rao Counsel for the Respondents : Mr.Metta Chandra Sekhar Rao, Learned Standing Counsel for A.P.E.P.D.C.L., for R.1 & R.2 Mrs.Vladimeerkhatoon, Learned Counsel for R.3 & R.4.

¶8

ORDER :-

¶9

The present Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the 3^rd respondent in passing the order in Roc.No.08/2019(B), dated 26.02.2019, thereby directing the 2^nd respondent, to disconnect the power supply to the petitioner’s borewell Service No.522, Cat-V, in an extent of Ac.0.66 cents in R.S.No.351/1 situated at Nandigudem Village, Gopalapuram Mandal, West Godavari District, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Electricity Act, 2003 and consequently to set aside the same. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the 3^rd respondent, Mr.Metta Chandra Sekhar Rao, learned Standing Counsel for A.P.E.P.D.C.L., appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mrs.Vladimeerkhatoon, learned counsel for the respondents 4 and 5 and perused the material available on record.

¶10

¶11

NJS, J W.P.No.4377 of 2019

¶12

As per the averments made in the Writ Petition, the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of an extent of Ac.0.66 cents in Sy.No.351/1 and an extent of Ac.5.31 cents in R.S.No.351/3A2 (351/3) of Nandigudem Village, Gopalapuram Mandal, West Godavari District. He made an application to the 3^rd respondent/Tahsildar and after due enquiry under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and Trees Act - 2002 (APWALTA – 2002), a certificate/permission for obtaining electrical connection was issued on 28.03.2017. The petitioner is using a borewell after obtaining electrical connection. On an earlier occasion with reference to a complaint, the petitioner was served with a notice for dismantling the borewell. Challenging the same, he filed W.P.No.631 of 2019 and the same was disposed of by an Order dated 25.01.2019, inter alia, providing that the petitioner shall submit explanation to the notice and after affording an opportunity of hearing, appropriate orders be passed.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the said orders, the petitioner submitted explanation along with the relevant material, but without considering the same and by overlooking the documents/material submitted along with the explanation, 3^rd respondent passed the Order under challenge. He submits that the order is not sustainable for the various reasons as stated in the Writ Petition.

¶14

the

¶15

The learned counsel for the contesting respondents 4 and 5 on the other hand submits that the petitioner, in fact, had not obtained any prior permission before digging the borewell in terms of the provisions of the above referred Act, sufficient distance was not maintained and as a result

¶16

¶17

NJS, J W.P.No.4377 of 2019

¶18

of the same, the water in the borewell of the said respondents is getting depleted. She also submits that in view of the illegal acts i.e., digging of borewell by the petitioner, the respondents 4 and 5 suffered huge loss. She accordingly submits that the Writ Petition may be dismissed.

¶19

This Court has considered the submissions made by the counsels on both sides. Though the learned counsel for the contesting respondents 4 and 5 vehemently submitted that the petitioner had not obtained the relevant/requisite permission for digging borewell, this Court deems it not appropriate to delve into the said aspect, in view of the main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order under challenge has been passed without considering the material on record and without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶20

As seen from the explanation dated 12.02.2019 submitted pursuant to the Order in W.P.No.631 of 2019 dated 25.01.2019, the petitioner had set out his case and refers to a permission/certificate dated 28.03.2017, stated to have been issued by the 3^rd respondent, a copy of which is filed in the material papers. Further, as seen from the impugned order dated 22.06.2019 no opportunity of hearing appears to have been afforded to the petitioner in terms of the Order passed in W.P.No.631 of 2019. Nothing is discussed in the order with reference to the material filed and the explanation submitted by the petitioner. The order is cryptic. Non-consideration of the material submitted along with the explanation denial of opportunity of hearing constitutes violation of principles of natural justice and the order under challenge is liable to be set aside the said ground.

¶21

¶22

NJS, J W.P.No.4377 of 2019

¶23

Accordingly, the order under challenge is set aside, the matter is remitted back to the 3^rd respondent for passing appropriate orders, after taking into account the explanation as also the material submitted by the petitioner and by giving due opportunity to the respondents 4 and 5 to file their objections. The 3^rd respondent shall pass a detailed reasoned order, within a period of six (6) weeks, from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶24

The Writ Petition is accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶25

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶26

__________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J

Date: 21.07.2022

NJS, J W.P.No.4377 of 2019

¶31

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶32

Writ Petition No.4377 of 2019

¶33

Date: 21.07.2022

¶34

P K Rajasekhar Rao v. Eastern Power Distribution Company of Ap Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P K Rajasekhar Rao v. Eastern Power Distribution Company of Ap Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Beeram Venkataramana Vs Surisetty Veera Venkata Satyanarayana

Nathala Suguna Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M.Subba Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Simhadri Saiji Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

K.P. Vara Prasad Naidu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Sai Rutwick Constructions, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh