Challa Satyanarayana Vs the Assistant Executive Engineering (Operations)

¶1

s V

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 370 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Challa Satyanarayana, S/o. Late Challa Venkata Swamy, Aged about. 61 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o D.No.1-94, Ramalayam Street, East Ganugudem, Rajanagaram, East Godavari District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Assistant Executive Engineering (Operations), Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Co.Ltd Rajanagaram, East Godavari District.

¶12

The Executive Engineer(operations), Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Co.Ltd, Rajahmundry Rural, East Godavari District.

¶13

State of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary, Energy Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi.

¶14

The Tahsildar, Rajanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District.

¶15

The District Collector, East Godavari District At Rajahmundry, AP.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed there with, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the Letter .No.

¶18

AEE / A / Rajanagaram /F.No./ D.no.671/2024,d t.20- 12-2024 of the 1st respondent in restraining the petitioner from using the power supply through service. No. 143111432 1537567 for lifting^the water from the new bore well situated in Sy.No.599 in view of the old bore well within the same Sy.No. become dry to irrigate the land in the same survey number without any notice or enquiry at the instance of the 4th respondent as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary and contrary to law and further direct the respondent to restore the power supply/permit to use the power supply from service. No. 143111432 1537567 to lift the water from new bore well to harvest the existing paddy crop in Sy.No.599 to an extent of Ac.4.22 cents situated in kalavacharla village of Rajanagaram Mandal till the existing paddy crop is harvested by the petitioner or the enquiry is completed whichever is earlier.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2()7f^

¶20

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 suspend the operation of the Letter.No.rAEE /A/ Rajanagaram/ F.No. / D.no.671/2024,dt.20-12-2 024 of the 1st respondent with a direction to the 1st and 4th respondents to restore the power supply/permit to use the power supply from service. No. 143111432 1537567 to lift the water from new bore well to harvest the existing paddy crop in Sy.No.599 to an extent of Ac.4.22 cents situated in kalavacharla village of Rajanagara m Mandal pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. G SEENA KUMAR

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : SRI VV SATISH Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR ENERGY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 5: GP FOR REVENUE

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

t

:;1::

APHC010006192025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [0] (Special Original Jurisdiction) '

¶28

MONDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶29

PRESENT

¶30

WRIT PETITION NO: 370/2025

¶31

Between:

¶32

Challa Satyanarayana ...PETITIONER

¶33

AND

¶34

The Assistant Executive Engineering Operations ...RESPONDENT(S) and Others

¶35

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶36

1.G SEENA KUMAR

¶37

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GPFOR ENERGY

2.GP FOR REVENUE

::2::

JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIWIMAGADDA THE HONOURABLE SRI

¶43

w P Nn,370 of 2025

¶44

This CouH made the following

¶45

ORDER:-

¶46

under Article 226 of the Writ Petition is filed The instant Petitioner for the following relief: Constitution of India by the

¶47

direction more particularly one in the Letter

¶48

through service No.143'111432 iwroo lift the

¶49

further direct the 1 responden 143111432 1537567 to use the power supply from paddy crop in Sy water from new ”^"*22 cents situated in otlavacharla^villageof No,599 to an PfP'f.^^hp axTsSng paddy crop is harvested^bythe X-ror^di'r^'L^dl^ is earlier and pass..'

¶50

is that the Petitioner is absolute owner 2. The case of the Petitioner is extent of Ac.4.61 cents of the land in Sy.No.599 to an and possessor Mandal of East situated in Kaiavacharia Revenue Viiiage of Rajanagaram Godavari District. Since the Petitioner became the owner of the subject is cultivating paddy doing agriculture, particularly he land he has been cultivation the Petitioner dug a borecrop at the subject land. For such and also got an obtained necessary permissions well after having eiectricai service connection bearing No.143111432 1537567.

¶51

3

¶52

due to failure of the of the Petitioner that (a) It is further case well and shifted the Petitioner dug another boreexisting bore-well, the well without any prior permission since both the meter to the new boreNow there is a survey number. situated in the same bore-wells are of electricity service in the subject land and because standing paddy crop m is suffering with of bore-well, the Petitioner is disconnection due to shifting heavy losses.

¶53

Counsel for the Respondent hand, learned Standing 3. On the other was granted in respect of submits that once the permission Nos.1 and 2 the same survey number shifting of meter even within one bore-well, any per General of the said meter as for shifting requires an application and Retail Supply of Supply of Distribution Terms and Conditions Electricity Regulatory Commission issued by Andhra Pradesh Licensees dated 06.01.2006. vide proceedings No.Secy/01/2006

¶54

that for change of meter in respect of (a) He further submits should also be approved by the another bore-well which was dugged In the earlier under WALTA Act, 2004. contemplated Tahsildar as service connection issued NOC for granting occasion the Petitioner was furnished in bore-well. But no such NOC was in respect of previous without NOC, on well but he made an application respect of new bore-

¶55

::4::

¶56

05 12.2024 for the subject land where the bore is situated^seemstobe classified as disputed land between the Petitioner^{andtheGovernment,}

¶57

the 1®^ Respondent issued impugned (b) In view of the same notice dated 20.12.2024 informing the Petitioner to obtain NOG in bore-well then only the Petitioner is entitled either^for respect of the new new service connection or shifting of the existing^{serviceconnection,for} which the Petitioner submitted a detailed explanation^{on23.12.2024.} In view of the said explanation, the Respondents 1 and^{2havetoconsider} the same and pass appropriate orders if it is submitted to the 1 and 2 instead of Tahsildar or District Collector. Respondents learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned 4. Having heard Standing Counsel for Respondents 1 and 2 and after perusal of the material placed on record, it is observed that the^{Respondentsissued} notice dated 20.12.2024 informing the Petitioner for^{submissionofNOC} in respect of new bore-well which is mandatory as per the Licensee Rules, 2006. In the absence of the same, the application^ofthe , Petitioner dated 05.12.2024 cannot be considered. After^receiptofthe Petitioner submitted a detailed said impugned proceedings, the dated 23.12.2024 marking the same to the Respondents explanation about the difficulties for getting NOC since there is herein explaining standing paddy crop ^d in getting NOC for service connection which

¶58

::5::

¶59

the meanwhile the entire paddy crop of the may cause delay, in Petitioner would be damaged since the water is essential^{forpaddycrop.} 5. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and for the reasons as stated above, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Petitioner to re-submit the explanation^{dated23.12.2024to} the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein within two (2) weeks^{fromthedateof} receipt of a copy of this order and after such submission^{theRespondent} Nos.1 and 2 are directed to consider the same and pass^appropriate orders in accordance with law by affording an opportunity of^personal hearing to the Petitioner within two (2) weeks thereafter, Further, the directed to restore the service connection of the Respondents are Petitioner to save the standing paddy crop for which^{waterisindireneed.} No costs.

¶60

As a sequel, interlocutory applications if any pending,^shallstand closed. SD/- K. SRINIVASA

¶61

To,

¶62

The Assistant Executive Engineering (Operations), Andhra^Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Co.Ltd Rajanagaram, East^{GodavariDistrict.}

¶63

The Executive Engineer(operations), Andhra Pradesh^EasternPower Distribution Co.Ltd, Rajahmundry Rural, East Godavari^District.

¶64

The Principal Secretary, Energy Department, Secretariat^Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi.

¶65

The Tahsildar, Rajanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District.

¶66

The District Collector, East Godavari District At Rajahmundry,^AP. 6. One CC to Sri. G Seena Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP For Energy, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT]. 8. Two CCs to GP For Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh[OUT]. 9. One CC to Sri V V Satish, Advocate [OPUC]. 10. Three CD Copies

HIGH COURT

CC

DATED:06/01/2025

ORDER

WP.No.370 of 2025

DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Challa Satyanarayana v. the Assistant Executive Engineering (Operations)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Challa Satyanarayana v. the Assistant Executive Engineering (Operations)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaik Mahaboob Basha Vs the State of Ap

G Sudhakar Rao Vs Sashi Bhusan Kumar

Chevitipalli Narasaiah, Vs Sashi bhusan Kumar

Masjid -e- Zinda Bhai, Vs The State of A.P.

S MD Mukhtiyar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Mohammed Ishak Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh