Dismissed

Mudapati Shiva Ganga v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Jan 2026WP/36181/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition challenging the erection of an electricity pole near the petitioner's premises. The court held the petition was an abuse of process as the pole was on Government road, not private property, and dismissed it without costs due to the petitioner's financial inability.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as an abuse of process without imposition of costs; interlocutory applications closed.

Mudapati Shiva Ganga Vs the State of Ap — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

APHC010701492025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3328]

¶5

TUESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 36181 OF 2025

¶9

Between:

¶10

MUDAPATI SHIVA GANGA, D/O MUDAPATI VARAHALU AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/O KATTIPUDI VILLAGE SHANKAVARAM MANDALAM, KAKINADA DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENERGY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,VELAGAPUDI,AMARAVATI GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KAKINADA DISTRICT, AT KAKINADA

¶15

THE DIVISIONAL EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OPERATION, A.P. SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED, SHANKAVARAM, KAKINADA 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 topleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in proposing to erect the electricity pole in the petitioner's premises bearing D.No. 6-406 situated at Kattipudi village, Shankavaram Mandal, Kakinada District, without any right or authority, as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional and consequently direct the 2nd

¶18

¶19

respondent to take steps to prevent the 3rd respondent from electing the electricity pole in the petitioner's premises, and to grant

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶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 pleased to direct the respondent No.2 herein to consider and take appropriate action pursuant to the written complaint dt. 24-3- 2025, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition, and to pass

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶23

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 may be pleased to permit the petitioner herein to amend the cause title in respect of the respondent No.3 as "A.P. Easternn Power Distribution Company Limited" in the place of "A.P. Southern Power Distribution Company Limited", in the interest of justice, and to pass

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶25

1.V BABY RANI

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

1.GP FOR ENERGY

¶28

2.V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL)

¶29

¶30

The Court made the following ORAL ORDER:

¶31

Heard Sri U.V.D. Praveen Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri Nagendra, Ld. Counsel representing Sri V.V.Satish, Ld. Standing Counsel for the APEPDCL.

¶32

Sri Nagendra, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent has submitted the Written Instructions dated -Nil- furnished by the Asst. Engineer, Operation APEPDCL, Sankavaram along with the two colour photographs. Copies of it are supplied to the Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and the same are taken on record. The relevant portion of the Written Instruction is usefully extracted hereunder:

¶33

“Further, the petitioner again raised a complaint through PGRS, Kakinada, on the same issue. In response, the Superintending Engineer (Operation), Kakinada personally visited the premises and issued a reply clarifying that there was no danger due to the pole and that the pole had been erected on Government property, i.e., on the cement road, and not on the petitioner’s private property. Accordingly, it was informed that there was no necessity to remove the pole and the complaint was closed.

¶34

In this regard, it is submitted that the petitioner has intentionally filed repeated PGRS complaints and the present affidavit with the sole intention of obstructing the extension of power supply to nearly 30 service connections in Kattipudi Village. If the electricity pole is not erected at the Government place, about 30 prospective service connection holders will be deprived of power supply and forced to live without electricity.”

¶35

The above extract would indicate that the electric pole is erected on the cement road belonging to the Government and it has not been placed in the private property of the petitioner. The two colour photographs also very clearly indicated that the pole has been planted in the cement road and there is also a drainage between the Petitioner’s property and the pole.

¶36

¶37

In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that this Writ Petition is an abuse of process, since the factual details portrayed in the present Writ Petition are factually incorrect. However, having regard to the fact that the Writ Petitioner is not financially sound, this Court takes a lenient view by dismissing the Writ Petition as being devoid of any merit without imposing costs.

¶38

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶39

Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.

¶40

______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J

Date: 06.01.2026 MNR

218

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

¶45

WRIT PETITION NO: 36181 OF 2025

¶46

Dt: 06.01.2026

¶47

Mnr

Mudapati Shiva Ganga v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mudapati Shiva Ganga v. the State of Ap

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

P. Nagaraju, Chittoor Dist. Vs C.G.M., Ap Spdcl, Tirupati & 2 Ors.

Sagittal Infra Projects Vs the State of Ap

Guntupalli Rambabu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Potnuru Hari Prasad Vs Korada Venkata Santharao

Karnati Ramana Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P Padda Raju Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh