Durga Communication Network,Kothpeta Vs Eastern Power Distribution Company of Ap.

DURGA COMMUNICATION NETWORK,KOTHPETA, KOTHAPETA, REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR NAMBURI VEERA VENKATA SATYA SURYA REDDIYYA S/O VEERRAJU HINDU BUSINESS KOTHAPETA VILLAGE AND MANDAL E.G.DISTRICT

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

EASTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF AP, LTD.,REP BY ITS CHARIMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR VISAKHAPATNAM

¶14

ASSISTANT DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, OPERATION EASTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF AP., LTD KOTHAPET E.G.DISTRICT

¶15

ASSISTANT ENGINEER, OPERATION EASTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF AP., LTD KOTHAPETA E.G.DISTRICT

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

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 a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT of MANDAMUS declaring the Action of the 3^rd Respondent in threatening to cut the cable wires fixed to the Electrical poles in petitioners business area of Kothapeta Mandal of E.G.District, Within the Jurisdiction of 3^rd Respondent without Following due process of Law is illegal,irregular,

¶18

SRS,J W.P.No.14671 of 2013

¶19

Page 2 of 5

¶20

Arbitrary, Violative of Provisions of Electricity Act and Rules and Regulations framed there under and also offends Art 14 & 21 of Indian constitutions and Consequently direct the respondent to not to cut the cable wires in petitioners business operation area of kothapeta mandal and pass

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WVMP 2522 OF 2013

¶22

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 vacate the interim orders passed on 25.07.2013 in WPMPNo.17830/2013 in WPNO.14671/2013

¶23

IA NO: 2 OF 2013(WPMP 17830 OF 2013

¶24

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 Respondent not to interfere into my cable business activity in and around of Kothapeta Mandal by threatening to cut the cable wires attached to the Electoral Poles, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶26

1.MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶28

1.V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL)

¶29

2.P ANAND SESHU (SC FOR APEPDCL)

¶30

The Court made the following:

¶31

:: ORDER ::

¶32

Heard Sri Mangena Sree Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Aishwarya, learned junior standing counsel for respondents 1 to 3.

¶33

Complaining about the action of respondent No.3 in disconnecting the cable wires affixed to the electrical poles in Kothapeta Village and Mandal, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District, the above writ petition has been filed.

¶34

SRS,J W.P.No.14671 of 2013

¶35

Page 3 of 5

¶36

The petitioner has been operating a cable service under the name “Durga Communication Network”, in and around Kothapeta Village and Mandal. The petitioner obtained permission from the Postal Department to run the cable network. In some places, the petitioner affixed the cable wires to the electrical poles. In most places, the petitioner erected iron poles for fixing the cable wires.

¶37

Be that as it may, respondent No.3 insisted that the petitioner shall remove the cable wires without issuing any notice.

¶38

An interim order was granted on 15.05.2013 for four weeks. Thereafter, on 25.07.2013, the interim order was extended until further orders.

¶39

A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No.2. It was contended, inter alia, that the petitioner has been using electrical poles for laying cable wires, which is causing inconvenience to the departmental staff to attend regular maintenance. The department issued circulars regarding 3nauthorized 3nauthorize of electrical poles by the cable operators like the petitioner. Respondent No.3 issued a registered notice to the petitioner on 07.03.2013, directing the removal of 3nauthorized cable wires fixed to the electrical poles. By suppressing the said fact, the above writ petition was filed.

¶40

The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the arguments as per the averments made in the writ affidavit and counter affidavit.

¶41

At the hearing, learned junior standing counsel submitted a copy of G.O.Ms.No.15 Energy, Infrastructure and Investment (Power.I) Department dated 11.06.2018 issued by the Principal Secretary to Government. A perusal of G.O.Ms.No.15 would indicate fixation of rental charges for laying cables on electrical poles, in Municipalities and Municipal Corporations.

¶42

SRS,J W.P.No.14671 of 2013

¶43

Page 4 of 5

¶44

As seen from the pleadings, there is no dispute regarding the petitioner using the electrical poles for cable wires. The petitioner contends that no notice was issued, however, the learned junior standing counsel would submit about the issuance of notice.

¶45

In the counter affidavit, it was pleaded that a notice was said to have been issued to the petitioner. However, a copy of the said notice has not been filed along with the counter-affidavit. Though it was referred to the circular mentioned supra, a copy of the same is not annexed to the counter affidavit.

¶46

In the absence of any material regarding the issuance of notice, this Court may not accede to the contention of the learned standing counsel that notice was, indeed, issued to the petitioner.

¶47

Given the above facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage, with the consent of learned counsel on either side, directing respondent No.3 to follow due process of law, regarding the disconnection of cable wires fixed by the petitioner on the electric poles. No costs.

¶48

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

¶49

___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶50

Date: 02.07.2025 IKN

¶51

SRS,J W.P.No.14671 of 2013

¶52

Page 5 of 5

¶53

192