Dismissed¶39

Yerraballi Sailaja v. The Apcpdcl, Represented by its Managing Director

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Jul 2025WP/33688/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh HC Amaravati; WRIT PETITION No.33688 OF 2013; mandamus; Article 226; unauthorised electricity connection; disconnection; APCPDCL; representation dated 10.08.2013; reply letter dated 09.09.2013; Sy.Nos.364-3 and 364-4; Jandrabailu Village; Nimmanapalli/Nimmalapalli Mandal; Chittoor District; borewell; agriculture connection; SF.No.364-4; Sri A.Balaji; A. Srinivasulu Naidu; Yerraballi Sailaja; I.P.No.10 of 2007; Principal Senior Civil Judge Mandanapalli; DISCOM cannot adjudicate civil dispute; misconceived grievance; writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs; Section 151 CPC; IA No.1 of 2013 (WPMP 41920 of 2013).

What did the court decide?

The respondent authorities considered the petitioner's representation dated 10.08.2013 and sent a reply by letter dated 09.09.2013. ¶38

Yerraballi Sailaja Vs The Apcpdcl… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

¶1

[3331]

¶2

APHC010057502013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 33688/2013

¶8

Between:

¶9

YERRABALLI SAILAJA, W/O. YERRABALLI HARINATH REDDY, AGE 35 YEARS, DEC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. JANDRABAILU VILLAGE, NIMMALAPALLI MANDAL,CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE APCPDCL REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, ERRAMANZIL, VIDYUT SOUDHA, HYDERABAD.

¶13

THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER OPERATIONS APCPDCL, MADANAPALLI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER APCPDCL, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER APCPDCL, NIMMANAPALLI MANDAL, MADANAPALLI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶16

A SRINIVASULU NAIDU, S/O. LATE A. CHINNAPPA, R/O. JANDRABAILU, NIMMANAPALLI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

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 any appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.2 to 4 in not taking any action on my representation dated 10-08-2013 is illegal,

¶19

¶20

arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice consequently direct the respondents to remove the unauthorized electricity connection situated in Sy.No.364-3, 364-4 of Jandrabailu Village, Nimmanapalli Mandal, Chittoor District, and pass

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 41920 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 direct the respondents to remove the unauthorized electricity connection situated in Sy.No.364-3, 364-4 of Jandrabailu Village, Nimmanapalli Mandal, Chittoor District, and pass

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶24

1.K SRINIVAS

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.V R REDDY KOVVURI(SC FOR APSPDCL)

¶27

2.SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA

¶28

3.JAGARLAMUDIKOTESWARIDEVI(SC FORAPSPDCL)

¶29

The Court made the following:

¶30

::ORDER::

¶31

Heard Sri K.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K.V.Rama Rao, learned Standing counsel for respondents 1 to 4, and Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned counsel for the 5^th respondent.

¶32

The above writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondents 2 to 4 in not taking action in pursuance of the representation dated 10.08.2013 made by the petitioner to disconnect the unauthorised electricity connection in Sy.Nos.364-3 and 364-4 of Jandrabailu Village, Nimmanapalli Mandal, Chittoor District, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the absolute owner of an extent of Ac.0.96 cents and Ac.0.59 cents in

¶34

¶35

Sy.Nos.364-3 and 364-4 of Jandrabailu Village, Nimmanapalli Mandal, Chittoor District. The 5^th respondent dug a borewell and got an electricity service connection. The 5^th respondent filed I.P.No.10 of 2007 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mandanapalli, against the 3^rd respondent. The petitioner made a representation dated 10.08.2013; however, the same was not considered.

¶36

A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 4. It was contended, inter alia , that the respondents 1 to 4 cannot adjudicate the civil dispute between the petitioner and the 5^th respondent. Electricity connection was released in the name of Sri A.Balaji, son of the 5^th respondent. In pursuance of the representation made by the petitioner on 10.08.2013, the same was considered and informed to the petitioner by the letter dated 09.09.2013. Sri A.Balaji, son of the 5^th respondent, has been paying electricity consumption charges regularly. The 5^th respondent has not obtained any agriculture connection in SF.No.364-4.

¶37

5. No reply affidavit was filed to the counter affidavit.

¶38

Thus, as seen from the averments in the counter affidavit, the respondent authorities considered the representation made by the petitioner and sent a reply on 09.09.2013. Since the respondent authorities considered the representation of the petitioner, the grievance of the petition in the writ petition is misconceived.

¶39