T Ratna Sekhar Reddy Vs the State of Ap

¶1

APHC010027042025

¶2

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

¶3

I
^4
WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY
uj >
TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTYFIVE Cl
j
<br>

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 1559 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

T. Ratna Sekhar Reddy, S/o. T.Narayana Reddy, aged about 60 years. Timber business, D.No.7/169-1, Madhava Nagar Street, Madhava Nagar j Dharmavaram Town 1 Sri Sathya Sai District j (Erstwhile Ananthapuram

District).

...Petitioner

AND

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Energy Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi.

¶13

A

¶14

The Chief Managing Director, A.P.S.P.D.C.L, Tirupathi State of Andhra Pradesh,

¶15

The Superintendent Engineer, (Electrical) Ananthapuram.

¶16

The Assistant Divisional Engineer, (Electrical) Dharmavaram, Sri Sathya

¶17

Sai District.

¶18

V

¶19

^ 5. The Assistant Executive Engineer, (Electrical) Dharmavaram, Sri Sathya Sai District.

¶20

The Commissioner, Dharmavaram Municipality, Dharmavaram. Sri Sathya Sai District, (Erstwhile Ananthapuram District).

¶21

Mamilla Muralidhar, S/o. Seshappa Aged about 40 years, Madhav Nagar Street, Madhava Nagar Dharmavaram Town Sri Sathya Sai District (Erstwhile Ananthapuram District).

¶22

...Respondents

¶23

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 one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents more particularly the respondents 2 to 6 in not preventing the 7^^ respondent^eitherto remove or to relocate the 63 KV electric transformer (3 Phase) being installed by the 7th respondent in Madhava Nagar public street by closing the municipal drainage channel, protruding in to the public street (Madhava Nagar Street) in Dharmavaram Town and Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District (Erstwhile Ananthapuramu District), in order to avoid any danger^{totheresidentsof} Madhava Nagar, to the vehicles moving in the street, the by passers and to the inmates of the house of the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice and against to the fundamental rights under Article 14,21 and 300- A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents more particularly the respondents 2 to 6 to relocate or to remove 63 KV electric transformer (3 phase) installed by the 7”^ respondent in the public street in Dharmavaram Town and Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District (Erstwhile Dharmavaram Ananthapuramu District).

¶24

a

¶25

^ lA NO: 1 OF 2Q2fi

¶26

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to issue a direction to the respondents 2 to 6 to stop the 7th respondent from installing the 63 KV electric transformer (3 Phase) in Madhava Nagar public street by closing the municipal drainage channel, protruding in to the public street (Madhava Nagar Street) in Dharmavaram Town and Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District (Erstwhile Ananthapuramu District), in order to avoid any danger to the residents of Madhava Nagar to the vehicles moving in the street, the by passers and to the inmates of the house of the petitioner, pendency of the Writ Petition.

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S. KRISHNA REDDY

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR ENERGY

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 5: SRI VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA SC FOR APSPDCL Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : Mrs. V. SIREESHA RANI, ^ SC FOR MUNICIPALITY Counsel for the Respondent No.7 : SRI O. UDAYA KUMAR ^

¶30

The Court made the following order;

¶31

N

¶32

1

¶33

APHC010027042025

¶34

[3328]

¶35

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

¶36

WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶37

PRESENT

¶38

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

¶39

WRIT PETITION NO: 1559/2025

¶40

Between:

¶41

1.T RATNA SEKHAR REDDY, S/0 T.NARAYANA REDDY, AGED^ABOUT 60 YEARS. TIMBER BUSINESS, D.NO.7/169-1, MADHAVA NAGAR STREET, MADHAVA NAGAR, DHARMAVARAM TOWN, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT, (ERSTWHILE ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT).

¶42

...PETITIONER

¶43

AND

¶44

1.THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,^ENERGY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI.

¶45

2.THE CHIEF MANAGING DIRECTOR, A.P.S.P.D.C.L, TIRUPATHI, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH,

¶46

3.THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, (ELECTRICAL) ANANTHAPURAM.

¶47

4.THE ASSISTENT DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, (ELECTRICAL) DHARMAVARAM, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT.

¶48

5.THE ASSISTENT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, (ELECTRICAL) DHARMAVARAM, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT.

¶49

6.THE COMMISSIONER, DHARMAVARAM MUNICIPALITY, DHARMAVARAM. SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT, (ERSTWHILE ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT).

¶50

7.MAMILLA MURALIDHAR, S/0 SESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, MADHAV NAGAR STREET, MADHAVA NAGAR DHARMAVARAM TOWN, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT, (ERSTWHILE ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT).

¶51

2

¶52

...RESPONDENT(S): fit

¶53

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶54

1.S KRISHNA REDDY

¶55

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶56

1 .VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA SC FOR APSPDCL

¶57

2.GP FOR ENERGY

¶58

The Court made the following:

¶59

ORAL ORDER:

¶60

Heard Sri Seelam Krishna Reddy, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, Sri Venkata Rama Rao Kota, learned Standing Counsel for APSPDCL and Sri O. Udaya Kumar, learned Counsel for the Unofficial Respondent No.7. 2. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking following^relief: It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order^or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ^of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents more particularly the respondents 2 to 6 in not preventing the 7‘^respondent either to remove or to relocate the 63 KV electric transformer (3 Phase) being installed by the 6*^ respondent in Madhava Nagar public street by closing the municipal drainage channel, protruding in to the public street (Madhava Nagar Street) in Dharmavaram Town and Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District (Erstwhile Ananthapuramu District), in order to avoid any danger to the residents of Madhava Nagar, to the vehicles moving in the street, the by passers and to the inmates of the house of the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary, untenable^and in violation of the principles of natural justice and against to the fundamental rights under Article 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents more particularly the respondents 2 to 6 to relocate or to remove 63 KV electric transformer (3 phase) installed by the 7*^respondent in the public street in Dharmavaram Town and Mandal Sri Sathya Sai District (ErstwhileAnanthapuramu District) and to pass such

¶61

3

¶62

0t^

¶63

Other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶64

Writ Petitioner is the neighbor of the Unofficial Respondent^No.7. The Official Respondents have erected a transformer on the compound wall belonging to the Unofficial Respondent No.7 by erecting^{twoconcreteslabs.} The pillars, holding both the concrete platforms, are well merged into the compound wall of the Unofficial Respondent No.7. The photographs filed along with the present Writ Petition (at pages 26 & 27),as well as the photograph filed along with the Counter Affidavit (at page 6 thereof) would clearly indicate that the Official Respondents have^{erectedthesaidconcrete} structures for the purpose of placing a transformer on them. The first photograph in page 26 would indicate that the Petitioner herein is the neighbor, whose house is located on the right side in the photograph and the house of the Unofficial Respondent No.7 is located on the left side, adjoining the Petitioner’s house. From the first photograph at page 26 of the Writ Petition, it would reveal that the road is also almost 20 feet wide.

¶65

The first photograph in page 26 would also reflect^{thatthedistance} between the transformer and the gate of the Petitioner^{ismorethan15feet.}

¶66

At the outset, this Court is unable to countenance as to why this kind of Writ Petition has been filed seeking relief for removal of the electric transformer which is located on the compound wall of Unofficial Respondent No.7. It is a common knowledge that the transformers^{areerectedalloverthe} country on the margins of the road. The photographs^{filedinthisWritPetition} would also indicate that the erection of the transformers have not caused any obstruction to the free flow of drainage inasmuch as the pillars of the transformers have been merged into the compound wall belonging to the Unofficial Respondent No.7.

¶67

On the face of it, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present Writ Petition is a gross abuse of process inasmuch as there is neither any

¶68

•p^

¶69

4

¶70

impending threat to the Petitioner nor would it cause any kind of inconvenience, not only to the Writ Petitioner but also to the public, who use the road. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that this Writ Petition is not only devoid of any merit but is also gross abuse of process. Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed by imposing Exemplary costs of Rs. 15,000/- on the Petitioner, The said costs shall be paid within two weeks from today. Fifty percent (50%) of the said amount shall be deposited in favour of the President, Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates’ Association and remaining 50% of the Exemplary costs shall be deposited in favour of the Secretary, Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services^Committee.

¶71

Registry is directed to supply copies of this Order to the President, Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates’ Association and the Secretary, Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services Committee, for effective compliance.

¶72