Disposed

Natti Ramana, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC21 Nov 2024WP/7756/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged removal of his electricity meter without notice or hearing. The court, noting pending civil title disputes and unanswered notices, disposed of the writ petition directing him to submit a detailed explanation with documents within two weeks and respondents to pass orders after hearing.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed: petitioner to submit explanation/documents in two weeks; Respondents 2 and 3 to hear him and pass appropriate orders within four weeks. No costs.

Natti Ramana, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATUg^^J^ (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY .THE TWENTYSECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 7756 OF 2024

¶6

Between:

¶7

Natti Ramana, Male, aged- 42 years, Occupation Mechanic, S/o.N. Appa Rao, R/o.D.No. 19-366/26/7/1, Pine apple colony, Dulpet, Burial ground Road, Visakhapatnam - 530 040.

¶8

...Petitioner

¶9

AND

¶10

State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Serretry to Govt. (Energy DepailFneqt^,.2yel9gdudi, Amaravathi. Guntur District.

¶11

Executive Engineer, Operation Division, Zone 3, A.P.E.P.D.C.L., Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam - 530 048.

¶12

Divisional Engineer, O/o.Executive Engineer, Operation Division, Zone 3, A.P.E.P.D.C.L. Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam - 530^048.

¶13

Nookala Varalakshmi W/o Venkata Seshayya Babu, Aged 52 Years, C/o P V Sesha Rao and P Rohini, Door No. 19-367/3, Pinapple Colony, Sri Krishnapuram, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam District R4^is impleaded as per the CO dt.25.09.2024 vide orders passed^inlANo.2 of 2024.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 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 an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondents in removing Electricity Meter No. SC 116346A027369584 without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without giving any opportunity^{tothePetitioner} and without hearing the petitioner as highly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and clear violation of Principles of Natural Justice and clear violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to Re-connect the Electricity Meter No.SC 116346A027369584 and Restore power supply to the petitioner house bearing D.No.19-366/26/7/1.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to Re-connect Electricity^MeterNo.SC 116346A027369584 and Restore power supply to the petitioner's^house bearing D.No. 19-366/26/7/1 forthwith pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. B P RAJU

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR ENERGY

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI M CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

::1::

APHC010151522024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3329]

¶26

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶27

FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶28

PRESENT

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶30

WRIT PETITION NO: 7756/2024

¶31

Between;

¶32

Natti Ramana, ...PETITIONER

¶33

AND

¶34

State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶35

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶36

1.B P RAJU

¶37

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶38

1.GP FOR ENERGY

¶39

2.METTA CHENDRA SEKHAR RAO

¶40

The Court made the following

¶41

ORDER:

¶42

The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the^{Constitutionof}

¶43

India is filed by the Petitioner with the following^relief;

¶44

“....to issue an appropriate Writ order or direction^{moreparticularly} in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondents in removing Electricity Meter No.SC. 116346A027369584 without issuing any notice to the petitioner and

¶45

¶46

without giving any opportunity to the Petitioner and without hearing the petitioner as highly illegal arbitrary and contrary^{tolawandclear} violation of Principles of Natural Justice and clear violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to Reconnect the Electricity^MeterNo.SC, 116346A027369584 and Restore power supply to the petitioner house bearing D. No. 19-366/26/7/1 and pass such other^orderor orders ”

¶47

Heard Sri B.P. Raju, learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Energy and Sri Metta Chandrasekhara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for APEPDCL.

¶48

The case of the Petitioner is that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the house property bearing Door No. 19-366/26/7/1, Pineapple Colony, Mudasarlova, Visakhapatnam having acquired the same by way of regularization of alienation in terms of the G.O.No.388 issued by the 1®* Respondent on 04.08.2018. Since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the subject house property.

¶49

While so, the 4^'^ Respondent herein who is unofficial respondent disputing the title of the Petitioner and submitted a representation / complaint against the Petitioner to the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that considering the complaint/representation of the unofficial respondent without following due procedure as contemplated, the Respondent authorities disconnected the Electricity service connection of the subject house property of the Petitioner^on the

¶50

::3::

¶51

ground that, the Petitioner neither submitted any explanation nor proved his possession over the subject house property^which is contrary to the ownership conferred by the 1®* Respondent^vide proceedings dated 04.08.2018. Hence the writ petition.

¶52

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel filed counter affidavit, which reads thus:

¶53

“5. I submit that the petitioner received the notice dated 18.10.2023 on 19.10.2023 but he neither replied to^thenotice nor submitted the required documents. Hence, his service connection was disconnected on 30.12.2023. further submit that till the release of service, the petitioner had^notusedthe service connection and there were no units recorded in the meter with service No.116346A027369584. 6. I respectfully submit that one Sri Y. Ramakrishna had submitted a copy of the Judgment dated 25.01.2024 passed by the Hon’ble Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bheemunipatnam which says that the petitioner herein did not file any pie of evidence to prove his possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and in the result the suit was dismissed. Therefore, the petitioner herein is not in possession of the premises for which he is seeking service connection^andhe had not submitted the necessary documents as describedⁱⁿ the notice dated 18.10.2023. Hence, he is not entitled to obtain service connection and the petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

¶54

Learned Standing Counsel further would submit that^sincethe petitioner neither submitted any explanation to the notices dated 18.10.2023 and 19.10.2023 nor proved his possession over the subject house property by way of material evidence if any, but after following due procedure the Electricity service connection was disconnected.

¶55

::4::

¶56

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for Respondents and on the perusal of the material on record, it appears^thatthe Petitioner herein is absolute owner and possessor of the subject house property by way of assignment/regularization issued by the Respondent No.1 pursuant to the G.O.No.388, dated 04.08.2018. It is further observed that there are title disputes between the Petitioner and un-official respondent and both were at logger heads before the trial Court by invocation of civil proceedings. The fact remains that the Petitioner did not submit any explanation for the notices issued by the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein pursuant to which only the Electricity service connection in respect of the subject house property of the Petitioner was disconnected.

¶57

Therefore, in view of the reasons stated above, this Court^is of the considered view that the present Writ Petition can be disposed of directing the Petitioner to submit a detailed explanation along with the documents to prove his title and possession over the subject house property within a period of two weeks from today to the Respondents 2 and 3 herein and upon such submission the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall consider and pass appropriate^orders after affording an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner within a period of four week^ tfiereafter.

¶58

:;5::

¶59

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs,

¶60

As a sequel interlocutory applications if any pending, shall

¶61

stand closed.

¶62

//TRUE COPY//

¶63

Sd/- N. NAGAMMA assistANTOEGISTRAR

¶64

S^tlON OFFICER

¶65

To,

¶66

Principal Secretary to Govt. (Energy Department), Velagaudi, Amaravathi. Guntur District. ,

¶67

Executive Engineer,Operation Division, Zone 3, A.P.E.P.D.C.L. Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam - 530 048.

¶68

3 Divisional Engineer, 0/o.Executive Engineer Operation ^vision. Zone 3, A.P.E.P.D.C.L. Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam - 530 048.

¶69

^One CC to Sri. B P Raju, Advocate [OPUC]

¶70

TwoCCsto GP For Energy ,High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶71

Chandra Sekhar Rao, SC for APEPDCL[OPUC].

¶72

1. One CC to Sri Metta 7. THREE CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:22/11/2024

ORDER

WP.No.7756 of 2024

2 I NOV 202^ I
. Current Section

¶80

DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Natti Ramana, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Natti Ramana, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

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

The Water Users Association Vs Sri Sasi Bhushan Kumar IAS

Master Penmetsa Murali Krishnam Raju, Vs The Government of India

Damacharla Anil Babu Vs The Government of India, rep. by its Secretary

D.Venugopal Rao Vs Sri Vikas Marmat, Ias.

Vattikuti Rama Rao Vs Apswb,Scy,Ch.Ex.Officer,Hyd,& 3

M/s. Omkar Industries (Sc No.14221005722) Vs The Senior Accounts Officer, Operation Circle