Dismissed

K Subramanyam Reddy v. Ap Southern Power Distribution Company Apspdcl

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Sept 2024WP/19672/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court issued mandamus directing respondents to consider the petitioner's explanation regarding unauthorized borewell use and hold off on disconnecting electricity supply pending a final speaking order. The petition challenging the disconnection notice was disposed of by granting interim relief and directing departmental compliance.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner and pass a speaking order within two weeks; electricity supply not to be disconnected till then.

K Subramanyam Reddy Vs Ap Southern… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

[

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVAT

¶5

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶6

TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 19672 OF 2024

¶9

Between:

¶10

K. Subramanyam Reddy, S/o M. Krishnappa, aged about⁴² years, occbusiness, R/o D. No. 34-197/10, Neelakunta Village, Palamaner Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶11

N. Doraswamy Gowdu, S/o Late Narayana Gowda, Aged about 44 years, Occbusiness, R/o D. No. 34-197/10, Neelakunta Village, Palamaner Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶12

...PETITIONERS

¶13

AND

¶14

Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company APSPDCL, Rep by its Chairman and Managing Director CMD At Corporate office, 191365/A, Kesavayanagunta, Srinivasapuram, Tiruchanoor Road, Tirupati 517503

¶15

The State of AP, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District

¶16

The Deputy Executive Engineer, Operation circle, APSPDCL, Palamaneru Mandal, Chittor District

¶17

The Assistant Executive Engineer, Operation Circle APSPDCL Rural Palamaneru , Chittor District

¶18

The Palamaneru Municipality, Rep by its Commissioner, Palamaneru Mandal, Chittor District.

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ, order more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus by declaring the action of respondent no.4 in issuing the notice vide in no. Lr. No. AE/OP/Rural Palamaner /F .no. 21/D. No. 460/2024 dated 20.08.2024 for the disconnection of electricity supply to the petitioner property as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional andiin violation of Article 14,19,21,300-A of Indian „ . . constitution, against the Judgment of Supreme Court ,n Dilip (Dead) through Lrs. v. Satish and Others as well as the WALTA Act and Electricity Act and against principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the notice i M by the respondent no. 4 vide in Lr No, AE/OP/Rural Palamaner /F .no. 21/D. No. 460/2024 dated 20.08.2024 for the disconnection of electricity supply to the petitioner property, SC. No. 5821401002182 situated ini D.No. 34-197/10, Neelakunta Village Palamaner Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 9noA

¶22

Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed i in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 4 respondent to not to disconnect the electricity supply pursuant to the notice issued vide i 'n no. Lr. No.AE/OP/Rural Palamaner /F . no. 21/D. No. 460/2024 dated 20.08.2024 to the petitioner property, SC. No. 5821401002182 Situated in D. No. 34197/10, Neelakunta Village, Palamaner Mandal, Chittoor District, pending disposal of the above writ petition pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioners: M/s. PILLIX LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1,3 & 4: M/s. JYOTHI RATNA ANUMOLU, Jr. SC for APSPDCL Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: GP FOR MUNICIPAL administration and urban development

¶24

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI N. RANGA REDDY, SC FOR MUNICIPALITIES

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

APHC010391172024

¶28

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH 0E0 AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶29

[3329]

¶30

TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶31

PRESENT

¶32

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶33

WRIT PETITION NO: 19672/2024

¶34

Between;

¶35

K Subramanyam Reddy and Others

¶36

...PETITIONER(S)

¶37

AND

¶38

Ap Southern Power Distribution Company Apspdcl and ...RESPONDENT(S) Others

¶39

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶40

1.PILLIX LAW FIRM

¶41

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶42

1.JYOTHI RATNA ANUMOLU JUNIOR STANDING COUNSEL FOR APSPDCL

¶43

2.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP

¶44

The Court made the following:

¶45

¶46

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶47

WRIT PETITION NO: 19672/2024

¶48

ORDER:

¶49

This writ petition is fiied under Articie 226 of the Constitution

¶50

of the india seeking the foiiowing reiiefs:-

¶51

“to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly^one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action^of respondent No. 4 in issuing the notice vide Lr. No.AE/OP/Rura! Palamaner/F. No. 21/D. No. 460/2024 dated 20.08.2024 for the disconnection of electricity supply to the petitioner’s property as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and in violation of Article 14, 19, 21, 300-A of Indian Constitution, against the judgment of Supreme Court in Dilip (Dead) through Lrs. V. Satish & Others, as well as the WALTA Act and Electricity Act and against principles of natural justice and consequently set^asidethe notice issued by respondent No. 4 vide in Lr. No.AE/OP/Rura! Palamaner/F. No. 21/D. No. 460/2024 dated 20.08.2024 for the disconnection of electricity supply to the petitioner property, SC. No. 5821401002182 situatedⁱⁿ D.No.34-197/10, Neelakunta Village, Palamaner Mandal, Chittoor District and pass such other order.

¶52

Heard the iearned counsei for the petitioner and the iearned Standing Counsei for the respondent Nos.3 &^4. 3. Learned counsei for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is running a water piant after having obtained required registration at his own house iocated at D.No.34-197/10 , Neeiakunta Viiiage, Paiamaner Mandai, Chittoor District.^Forwhich the petitioner obtained commerciai eiectricity service connection bearing No.5821401002182 from the 1®' respondent. Thereafter, from the date of service connection, the petitioner^{neithercommitted} any default in payment of charges nor violated the terms of grant of

¶53

¶54

electricity service connection. But to the utter surprise of the the 4'^ petitioner, a notice dated 20.08.2024 was issued by respondent basing on the letter addressed by the Municipal Commissioner dated 19.08.2024, wherein it is stated that the petitioner has been unauthorizedly dugged the borewell^anddrawing the water for subject water plant in violation of WALTA^Actand accordingly requested this respondent for disconnection of the electricity service connection of the petitioner. For^which, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted an explanation^{totheMunicipal} Commissioner as well as respondent No.4 on 22.08.2024 explaining the reasons and permissions he obtained for running^{thewater plant} with an object to supply treated water to the public^{atlowprices.But} without considering the explanation dated 22.08.2024 the respondents are proposing to initiate action much less^{disconnection} of the electricity service connection of the petitioner in violation of provisions of Electricity Act, 2003. Hence, the present^{WritPetition.} 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.3 & 4 furnished written instructions^issuedbythe4 th respondent that the subject notice dated 20.08.2024^was issued pursuant to the letter addressed by the 5"^ respondent/Municipal Commissioner, wherein the Commissioner observed that the subject water plant of the petitioner was running by drawing^waterfroman unauthorized borewell, which is not permissible as per provision of

¶55

WALTA Act. Further, he requested respondent Nos.4 to^disconnect the power supply to the subject water plant of the^petitioner. In response to the subject letter, the 4'^ respondent^{issuedthisnoticeto} the petitioner to rectify the defects if any to avoid^{anydisconnection} by the 4 respondent. She further submits that so far no disconnection was taken place, and it is only an apprehension^ofthe petitioner. Since, the petitioner submitted his explanation^bywayof marking copy to the respondent Nos.4 and 5 dated 22.08.2024,^the respondents will consider the explanation and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Moreover any disconnection^ofpower supply in respect of subject connection will happen^{afterfollowing} due process as contemplated under the Act.

¶56

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.3 & 4 and on perusal of the material^placedon record, this Court is of the considered opinion that^{thepetitionershall} invoke appropriate jurisdiction challenging the impugned order issued by the Municipal Commissioner to the petitioner dated 19.08.2024. Further the present notice issued by respondent^No.4is only a consequential notice intimating the proposed^{actionandthere} is no determental order so far against the petitioner.^However,the petitioner submitted his explanation pursuant to the^noticesdated 19.08.2024 as well as 20.08.2024. As such the respondent^Nos.4

¶57

■4-.

¶58

¶59

and 5 have an obligation to consider the explanation and pass appropriate orders. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to respondent Nos.4 and 5 to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 22.08.2024 and pass a speaking order in accordance with law, within a period of two(2) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order and communicate the same to the petitioner. Till then, the respondents are directed not to disconnect the electricity service connection of the petitioner.

¶60

■4

¶61

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶62

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

¶63

SD/- N.NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ^€ection officer

¶64

To,

¶65

The Chairman and Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company APSPDCL, CMD At Corporate office 191365/A, Kesavayanagunta, Srinivasapuram.Tiruchanoor Road,

¶66

Tirupati 517503

¶67

The Principal Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration and Urban Development, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Velagapudi Amaravathi Guntur District

¶68

The Deputy Executive Engineer, Operation circle APSPDCL,

¶69

Palamaneru Mandal, Chittor District

¶70

The Assistant Executive Engineer, Operation Circle APSPDCL, Rural

¶71

Palamaneru , Chittor District

¶72

The Chairman and Managing Director, Palamaneru Municipality,

¶73

Palamaneru Mandal, Chittor Distric

¶74

One CC to M/s. Pillix Law Firm Advocate [OPUC]

¶75

¶76

One CC to M/s. Jyothi Ratna Anumolu, Junior Standing^Counselfor APSPDCL [OPUC]

¶77

One CC to Sri N. Ranga Reddy, SC for Municipalities[OPUC]

¶78

Two CC’s to GP for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, High Court of A.P. at Amaravati[OPUC]

¶79

Three CD Copies.

ssb

HIGH COURT

DATED;1 0/09/2024

ORDER

WP.No.19672 of 2024

oX 10 OCT 202'! «9
^ . Current Section ^ //

¶87

DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS

K Subramanyam Reddy v. Ap Southern Power Distribution Company Apspdcl

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Subramanyam Reddy v. Ap Southern Power Distribution Company Apspdcl

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gudiseva Nagendram Vs Sri. Sasi Bhushan Kumar, I.A.S.

Tirupati Municipal Corporation, Vs The Secretary

Kota Jayapal, S/o Joseph, Vs Idbi Bank Limited, rep. by its

Guntur District Wine Merchants Welfare Association Vs the State of Ap

G Rami Reddy Vs Sri Shashibhushan Kumar

P Obulesu Vs the State of Ap