Disposed

S.Abdul Khadar Jilani v. A.P. Southern Power Distribution Company Limited

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Sept 2026WP/515/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that since the power supply to the petitioners' service connections was restored pursuant to an interim order dated 06.01.2016, no further orders are required in the main writ petition. The petition was closed as the dispute regarding supply restoration was subjudice at the interim stage.

What did the court decide?

None. The writ petition is closed as power supply was already restored via interim orders.

S.Abdul Khadar Jilani Vs A.P. Southern Power… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

APHC010582712016

¶2

[3329]

¶3

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

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 11^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 515/2016

¶8

Between:

¶9

S.ABDUL KHADAR JILANI, S/O S.A. BASHA, AGED 57 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O 5-877, M.G.STREET SRIKALAHASTI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT (RADIO REPAIR BUNK)

¶10

L.RAJENDRA, S/O SUBRAMANYAM, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O H.NO. 5-530, M.G.STREET, SRIKALAHASTI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT (RADIO REPAIR BUNK)

¶11

P.KRISHNAIAH @ SESHADRI, S/O SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O GANDHI STREET SRIKALAHASTI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT (BEEDI BUNK)

¶12

L.KANNAIAH, S/O SOMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 5-537, M.G. STREET SRIKALAHASTI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT (BEEDI BUNK)

¶13

...PETITIONER(S)

¶14

AND

¶15

A P SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED, REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGING DIRECTOR, TIRUPATI.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT DIVISIONAL ENGINEER OPERATION APSPDCL, SRIKALAHASTI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶17

THE ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT ENGINEER OPERATION APSPDCL, SRIKALAHASTI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶18

SRIKALAHASTI MUNICIPALITY REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER, SRIKALAHASTI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶19

¶20

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶21

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 toIssue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein in not restoring the power supply to the Service Connections pertaining to the wooden bunks belonging to the petitioners bearing S.C. Nos. 5432200009308, 5432200017304, 5432200030831 and 5432200008755 which were disconnected basing on the letter of the 4th respondent dt. 14-5-2015 though there are no dues or arrears of electricity consumption charges, as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, and to pass

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP 644 OF 2016

¶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 to pass orders directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein to forthwith restore the power supply to the Service Connections pertaining to the wooden bunks belonging to the petitioners bearing S.C. Nos. 5432200009308, 5432200017304, 5432200030831 and 5432200008755 situated on the road margin adjoining the Cinema Street and Co-operative Milk Depot, Srikalahasti, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition, and pass

¶24

IA NO: 4 OF 2016(WVMP 2305 OF 2016

¶25

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 vacate the interim orders grated in W.P.M.P. No.644 of 2016 in W.P. No. 515 of 2016, Dated 06.01.2016

¶26

IA NO: 6 OF 2016(WPMP 96022 OF 2016

¶27

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

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶29

1.K MOHAN RAMI REDDY

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶31

1.VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA SC FOR APSPDCL

¶32

2.V R REDDY KOVVURI(SC FOR APSPDCL)

¶33

¶34

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO.515 OF 2016

¶35

ORDER:-

¶36

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

¶37

“Issue an appropriate Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein in not restoring the power supply to the Service Connections pertaining to the wooden bunks belonging to the petitioners bearing S.C.Nos.5432200009308, 5432200017304, 5432200030831 and 5432200008755 which were disconnected basing on the letter of the 4^th respondent dated.14.5.2015 though there are no dues or arrears of electricity consumption charges as being illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and to pass.”

¶38

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing

¶39

Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶40

The case of the petitioner is that the 4^th respondent disconnect the power supply without issuing any notice and without following due procedure prescribed by law. During the pending of the Writ Petition, pursuant to the interim order, dated 06.01.2016, the service connection of the petitioner was restored, and the same is presently continuing. The petitioner has also been paying the regular CC bill as and when they fall due. Therefore, in view of the restoration of the power supply pursuant to the interim direction, no further orders are required to be passed in the present writ petition.

¶41

Recording the above submission, writ petition is closed. No costs.

¶42

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶43

_____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

Date: 11.09.2026

BSM

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶48

WRIT PETITION NO. 515 OF 2016

¶49

Date: 11.09.2026

¶50

¶51

BSM

S.Abdul Khadar Jilani v. A.P. Southern Power Distribution Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Abdul Khadar Jilani v. A.P. Southern Power Distribution Company Limited

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