Heard Ms. Rachana, learned counsel, representing Ms. Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Energy for the respondent No.1 and Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 5.

¶5

With the consent of the parties counsels, the writ petition is being disposed of finally at this stage.

¶6

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following relief:-

¶7

“I, therefore, humbly pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents particularly 5^th respondent in disconnecting power supply to my Srikanth Cable shop electrical service connection, in spite of I am regularly paying electricity consumption charges for the Service Connection No.4353310100932, installed for my shop bearing Door No.35-1-48 (40), Plot No.5, Devudu Cheruvu, Ongole, Prakasam District, without issuing any prior notice and without following any known procedure established by law, as illegal, irregular, irrational, without any authority of law, violative of provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and offends Articles 14 and 21 of

¶8

¶9

Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents particularly the 5^th respondent to restore power supply to my said Service Connection and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶10

On 31.03.2023, Sri Abhay Jain, learned counsel, representing Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 5, submitted on the basis of instructions that, on the request of the Municipal Commissioner of the respondent No.6, the supply was disconnected, but the same was restored on 11.03.2022.

¶11

Ms. Rachana, learned counsel, representing Ms.

¶12

Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, represents that the connection has been restored.

¶13

Sri Abhay Jain, further submits that the connection which has been restored shall not be disconnected except in accordance with law, if so required.

¶14

Recording the same, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶15

No order as to costs.

¶16

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending,

¶17

shall also stand closed.

¶18

RAVI NATH TILHARI,J Date: 03.04.2023 SCS

¶19

¶20

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶21

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.7892 of 2023

¶23

Date: 03.04.2023

¶24

Scs

Thotakura Srikanth v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Thotakura Srikanth v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khandavalli Emmanual, Vs The Union of India

M/S.Jp Ram Infra Vs Y.Sri Lakshmi

M.Butchaiah and Co. Vs Y.Sri Lakshmi,Ias

K,K.Sherwani Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

M/S. R Gangaiah and Co., Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Bhumireddy Babul Reddy Vs the State of Ap