Disposed

Vanaparthi Umasankar v. Southern Power Distribution

Andhra Pradesh HC27 Mar 2024WP/7718/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appeal, the High Court directed the electricity authority to proceed with an enquiry regarding land objections raised by a third party. The court stayed coercive disconnection steps during the enquiry, ensuring service connections remain intact while records are verified. The writ petition was disposed of without costs.

What did the court decide?

Stay of coercive disconnection steps pending enquiry verification of land records.

Vanaparthi Umasankar Vs Southern Power… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

W. / ’

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.KRISHNA MOHAN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 7718 OF 2n?d

¶7

Between:

¶8

Vanaparthi Umasankar, S/o Muniswamy, Aged about 32 vears dm erstwhile Chittoor District.

¶9

M. Nagaraju, S/o Venkataiah, Aged about 42 vears Ocr nri>,=.t» Ti;!fprD\trcfi°

¶10

J. Radha Sukanya, W/o Gopi Krishna Aged about 43 years, Occ

¶11

housewife, R/o. Door N0.6-6-492/B Irlanagar, Tirupati Urban, Tirupati

¶12

District, Erstwhile Chittoor District.

¶13

. Rayadurgam Naga Tulasi, , W/o Narayana Murthv Aoed ahnnt an Tirupatiyears, OCCUrban,housewife,TirupatiR/o.District,DoorErstwhileNo 12-102ChittoorRG DisWetCninnw Pa^ ■ m

¶14

N. Purushotham, S/o Ravi, Aged about 32 years, Occ private employee

¶15

R/o. Door N0.6-12-7A2, K.B Layout, Tirupati Urban, Tirupati District,’

¶16

Erstwhile Chittoor District

¶17

...Petitioners

¶18

AND

¶19

Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd, Rep. by

¶20

It^s Chairman and Managing Director, APSPDCL Srinivasapuram,

¶21

Tirupati. DiSrta,C!"rrT"'"® Operation, Circle Southern Power Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd, APSPDCL Tiruchanuru

¶22

Ltrict^ °'®'"ot, Erstwhile Chittoor (E E ) Operation, APSPDCL Tiruchanuru

¶23

District""''^"^'’'''^"’' Etstwhile Chittoor

¶24

IpsP^rfr"' Operation, Frch Srinivasapuram Tirupati, Tirupati District

¶25

Erstwhile Chittoor District.

¶26

Ip|pDrThS;ioruS°SrNv^^^^^^^^^

¶27

T. Dhanunjaya Reddy, S/o. TV Subba Reddy, Aged about 66

¶28

R/o. Door No. 2-14 years, District. Penagaluru Village, Penagaluru Mandal Kadapa years, R/o.

¶29

Mandal, Kadapa District

¶30

'■ no"-14"pe?agaLf

¶31

...Respondents

¶32

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fiied therewith the High Court may be pleased to issue the order or orders direction more particularly one in nature of the Writ of Mandamus declaring the notice vide proceedings LR No.AE/Renigunta/F.No. D.No.682/2024 dated 19-03-2024 issued by the 5th respondent and highhanded action of the 3"^ to e® respondents trying to disconnection of the petitioners electrical connections vide bearing Nos. and 5545 03nnnT°' 5545103000602, 5545103000603 5545103000604, is iilegal, arbitrary, unjust and voilative of fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 3'^ to 6*'^ respondents not to disconnect the petitioners electrical connections vide bearing Nos 5545i03nnnRnn 545103000601, 5545103000602, 5545103000603 and 5545103000604.

¶33

jA NO: 1 OF 90921

¶34

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 3'^ to 6*^ respondents not to disconnect the petitioners’

¶35

electrical connections vide bearing Nos. 5545103000600, 5545103000601, 5545103000602, 5545103000603 and 5545103000604, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶36

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI SANAGA ASHOK KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: SRI V.R.REDDY KOWURI, SC for APSPDCL

¶37

The Court made the following order:

¶38

APHC010149412024

¶39

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

¶40

[3233]

¶41

THURSDAY .THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶42

PRESENT

¶43

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

¶44

WRIT PETITION NO: 7718/2024

¶45

Between:

¶46

Vanaparthi Umasankar and Others

¶47

...PETITIONER(S)

¶48

AND

¶49

Southern Power Distribution and Others

¶50

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶51

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶52

1 .SANAGA ASHOK KUMAR

¶53

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶54

¶55

The Court made the following Order:

¶56

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the^learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.l to 6.

¶57

The issuance of notices to the respondent Nos.7 to 9 is dispensed with as no prejudice would cause to them even if it is disposed of in their absence.

¶58

of the 5^^ 3. This writ petition is filed questioning the notice respondent addressed to the petitioners dated 19.03.2024^callingfor

¶59

¶60

submission of explanation with regard to the disconnection of service connections bearing Nos.5545103000600, 5545103000601, 5545103000602, 5545103000603 and 5545103000604 standing in the names of the petitioners on the ground that, the 7th respondent raised objection with respect to the Sy.Nos.538/1, 2, 547/1, 2, 548/1 and 2 and 3 of Karakambadi Village Accounts.

¶61

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the impugned notice of the 5* respondent addressed to the petitioners dated 19.03.2024 it was stated that the 7th respondent obtained injunction orders in O.S.No.84 of 2023 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Tirupati on 05.01.2024. But the APSPDCL released service connections to the petitioners on 16.02.2024 when injunction order is in force. Hence, the petitioners were called to give explanation with regard to the injunction granted in the said suit within three (03) days from the date of i issuance of the said notice for taking necessary action under the Electricity Act, 2003.

¶62

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the petitioners are not the parties to the above said suit said to have been initiated by the 7ti- respondent herein. The petitioners are not aware of the injunction order passed by the concerned Court dated 05.01.2024. The petitioners approached the 5th respondent for the service connections to the subject property and accordingly, the said service

¶63

¶64

connections are given by the 5*^^ respondent. It is a surprise for the petitioners to receive the impugned notice dated 19.03.2024^ofthe5th respondent.

¶65

On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing^for the respondent Nos.l to 6 submits that, the injunction^orderofthe Court below is dated 05.01.2024 and the service connections were obtained by the petitioners on 16.02.2024 when injunction^orderisin force. Hence, the respondent-Department issued the impugned notice to get clarification from the petitioners. In case, the explanation is submitted by the petitioners, the same would be considered by following the due procedure by the 5* respondent. 7. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits^thatthe petitioners submitted explanation dated 21.03.2024 to the impugned notice of the 5th respondent dated 19.03.2024 and the same is pending.

¶66

In view of the above said facts and circumstances, the 5th respondent is directed to proceed with the enquiry pursuant to the impugned notice dated 19.03.2024 by considering the explanation of the petitioners dated 21.03.2024. After hearing all the parties concerned including the petitioners and the respondent^Nos.7to9and upon verification of the records and the subject land, appropriate decision shall be taken on it’s own merits as expeditiously as possible

¶67

¶68

preferably within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of this order. During the pendency of the enquiry there shall not be any coercive steps with regard to the service connections issued for the subject laud as detailed in the impugned letter dated 19.03.2024 of the 5* respondent. Subject to outcome of the above said enquiiy, appropriate decision shall be taken by the authorities concerned with regard to the continuation of the service connections or otherwise.

¶69

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

¶70

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶71

//TRUE COPY//

¶72

Sd/-N.NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ON OFFICER

¶73

To,

¶74

The Chairman and Managing Director, Southern Power^Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd, APSPDCL, Srinivasapuram, Tirupati.

¶75

The Superintending Engineer Operation, Circle Southern^Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd, APSPDCL,^Tiruchanuru Road, Srinivasapuram, Tirupati, Tirupati District,^{ErstwhileChittoor} District.

¶76

The Executive Engineer (E.E.) Operation, APSPDCL, Tiruchanuru Road, Srinivasapuram, Tirupati, Tirupati District,^{ErstwhileChittoor} District.

¶77

The Deputy Engineer Operation, APSPDCL, Tiruchanuru^Road, Srinivasapuram, Tirupati, Tirupati District, Erstwhile^{ChittoorDistrict.}

¶78

The Assistant Executive Engineer Operation, APSPDCL,TiruchanuruRoad, Srinivasapuram, Tirupati, Tirupati District, Erstwhile Chittoor District.

¶79

The Accounts Officer, Operation Circle, Southern Power Distributing, APSPDCL, Thiruchanuru Road, Srinivasapuram, Tirupati.

¶80

One CC to Sri Sanaga Ashok Kumar, Advocate [OPUC]

¶81

One CC to Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, SC for APSPDCL [OPUC] 9. Two CD Copies

RAM 1

HIGH COURT

DATED:28/03/2024

ORDER

WP.No.7718 of 2024

,V>
I l>!>
V

: O
O"'
c>
;/n:;o 0 6 MAY 2G2’} o03 I
w-S- -3b

¶89

DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Vanaparthi Umasankar v. Southern Power Distribution

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vanaparthi Umasankar v. Southern Power Distribution

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

Smt. Meduri Chamundeswari, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kollabathula Ravi Teja Vs the Union of India

Ravulapally Ravindranath, Vs The Union of India

N Swamy Naidu Vs Transmission corporation of Andhra Pradesh limited

Yenugupalli Krishna Vs Seekoti Appalakonda

Mng Partner, M/S.Sri Balaji Oil Agencies, Chittoor Dist and 2 Vs Chief Terminal Mgr, Iocl, Chittoor District