Disposed

Smt. K. Jayamma v. A.P. Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd.

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Sept 2026WP/21639/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner sought a declaration of inaction regarding service wire and poles and their restoration. The court noted that respondents established via affidavit that the service connection had already been restored in 2016. Consequently, no further order was required, and the petition was closed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed; no further orders required as service connection was already restored.

Smt. K. Jayamma Vs A.P. Southern Power… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

[3329]

¶2

APHC010304372016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

FRIDAY, THE 11^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 21639/2016

¶8

Between:

¶9

SMT. K. JAYAMMA, W/O..LATE RAMACHANDRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KAMMARAYANIMITTA VILLAGE, YADAMARI MANDAL, . CHITFBOR DISTRICT.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

A P SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD, REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, 19-13-65/A, KESAVAYANA GUNTA, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶13

THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, A.P. SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD., GREAMSPET, RURAL DIVISION, NEAR SUB JAIL, CHITTOOR TOWN.

¶14

THE ASST ENGINEER, A.P. SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD., (YADAMARI SUBSTATION), NEAR JODICHINTHALA, YADAMARI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶15

SMT RANGAMMA, W/O. GARGICHETTY CHENGAIAH, D/O ADEMMA, AGED ABOUT: 75 YEARS OCC: HOUSEWIFE R/O. KAMMARAYANIMITTA VILLAGE, KUKKALAPALLE POST, YADAMARI MANDAL, CHITTOOR 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 toto issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of

¶18

¶19

Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondents in providing Service Wire and Poles to my existing Service Connection No. 31 situated in Survey No. 4 of Kammarayanimitta Village, Konapalli Revenue village, Yadamari Mandal, Chittoor District as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the official Respondents to provide Service Wire and Poles to my existing Service connection and pass

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP 26583 OF 2016

¶21

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 2 and 3 to provide Service Wire and Poles to my existing Service Connection No. 31 situated in Survey No. 4 of Kammarayanimitta Village, Konapalli Revenue village, Yadamari Mandal, Chittoor District, pending disposal of above the writ petition and pass

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.P RAVI KIRAN

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA SC FOR APSPDCL

¶26

¶27

¶28

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶29

WRIT PETITION NO.21639 OF 2016

¶30

ORDER:-

¶31

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following direction:

¶32

“ to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondents in providing Service Wire and Poles to my existing Service Connection No 31 situated in Survey No 4 of Kammarayanimitta Village Konapalli Revenue village Yadamari Mandal Chittoor District as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the official Respondents to provide Service Wire and Poles to my existing Service connection and pass .

¶33

There is no appearance for the petitioner.

¶34

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents has furnished written instructions issued by the Assistant Engineer Operation Section, APSPDCL, Yadamari, wherein it is stated that the claim of the petitioner for restoration of service connection has been complied with in the year 2016 itself and that the service connection has since been restored and is presently in force.

¶35

Therefore, in view of the restoration of power supply to the petitioner, no

¶36

further orders are required to be passed in this writ petition.

¶37

Accordingly, writ petition is closed. No costs.

¶38

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand

¶39

closed.

¶40

_____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

Date: 11.09.2026

BSM

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶45

WRIT PETITION NO.21639 OF 2016

¶46

Date: 11.09.2026

¶47

¶48

BSM

Smt. K. Jayamma v. A.P. Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. K. Jayamma v. A.P. Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd.

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