M/s Swetha Purified Drinking Water Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

G. Vijay Bask a r, S/o. G.Sanjivappa, Aged abo u t 48 years, Resident of D.No.8-32, Nallagondrayanipalli Village, Somandapalli Mandal, Sri Sat y a Sai District – 515122.

¶10

...Petitioners

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of A ndhra Pradesh, rep. by its Princi p al Secretary, (Energy Depart m ent), Secretariat Buildings, Velag a pudi, Guntur District–52223.

¶13

The APSPDCL, Rep. by its Managing Director, Amav a rathi 522003 3. The Superinten d ent Engineer, APSPDCL, Sri Saty a Sal District, 515201

¶14

The Executive Engineer, APSPDCL, Hindupur, S ri Satya Sai District 515201.

¶15

The Assistant E x ecutive Engineer, APSPDCL, Soma n dapalle Town and Mandal, Sri Satya Sal District, 515122

¶16

The Tahsildar, S omandapalle Mandal, Sri Satya Sai D istrict,515122 7. K Saraswathi, W /o G Kristappa, Aged about 59 ye a rs, R/o D.No. 13-1-252/170, L ecturers Colony, Anantapur Tow n , Anantapur 515122. ...Respondents

¶17

Petition under Ar t icle 226 of the Constitution of India p raying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, t h e High Court may be pleased to is s ue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in th e nature of a Writ of Mandamus, d eclaring the inaction of the 5^th Respondent in failing to pass a reasone d order on the petitioners representa t ion dated 31-10-2025 as directed by this Honble Court in W.P. No.3 0 890 of 2025, and the consequent high-handed attempts by the Res p ondents to disconnect the electricity power supply

¶18

2

¶19

WP_6005_2026

¶20

to Service Connection No. 7334329000200 of the 1^st Petitioner situated at Sy. No.192, admeasuring Ac.0.25 cents in Nallagondrayanipalli Village, Somandapalli Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the principles of natural justice, and violative of Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents not to disconnect the power supply or interfere with the business activities of the 1^st Petitioner until the 5^th Respondent passes a reasoned order strictly in compliance with the earlier directions of this Honble Court, and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶21

I.A. No.1 of 2026

¶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 may be pleased to direct the Respondents, particularly Respondents No. 3 to 5, not to disconnect the electricity power supply to Service Connection No.7334329000200 of the 1^st Petitioner situated at Sy. No.192, Nallagondrayanipalli Village, Somandapalli Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District, and not to interfere with the day-to-day business activities of the 1^st Petitioner pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioners :

¶24

Counsel for 1^st Respondents : Counsel for Respondents 2 to 5: Counsel for 6^th Respondent : Counsel for 7^th Respondent :

¶25

M/s.S.Lakshmi Prameela

¶26

G.P. for Energy Standing Counsel for APSPDCL G.P. for Revenue ---

¶27

3

¶28

WP_6005_2026

¶29

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶30

The present writ petition is filed alleging high-handed attempts against the respondent Nos.2 to 5 / DISCOM Authorities and the 6^th respondent to disconnect the electrical Service Connection No.7334329000200 without passing a reasoned order, on the petitioners’ representation, as violative of principles of natural justice, Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and for consequential directions.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr.Kondeti Ashok, learned counsel representing the learned Standing Counsel for the A.P.S.P.D.C.L., Mr.T.Sanjeeva Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Mr.S.V.Rithvik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.7.

¶32

The petitioners, on the earlier occasion, filed Writ Petition No.30890 of 2025 and the same was disposed of, by an order dated 21.1.2026. Vide the said order, the respondent No.5 / Assistant Executive Engineer was directed to pass a reasoned order duly considering the explanation submitted by the petitioners to the notice dated 29.10.2025, within the stipulated time and further that before passing the orders, the respondent No.5 shall give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as also to the respondent No.7. The interest of the petitioners was also protected, in view of the direction contained therein that till appropriate orders are passed, the power supply to the Service Connection No.7334329000200 shall be restored.

¶33

Though the learned counsel for the petitioners sought to impress upon this Court by making submissions with reference to various averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the same need not be examined in detail, in view of the earlier order dated 21.1.2026.

¶34

4

¶35

WP_6005_2026

¶36

Mr.Kondeti Ashok, learned counsel representing the DISCOM authorities, while placing a copy of the latest instructions received from the respondent No.5 for perusal of this Court, inter alia submits that the power supply to the Service Connection in question was restored on 27.1.2026 and notices were issued to the concerned parties on 24.2.2026 with reference to the enquiry, pursuant to the orders dated 21.1.2026 of this Court referred to above. He further submits that the petitioners’ allegations in the affidavit are not correct and on mere apprehension the present writ petition is filed. He also submits that the concerned Officer would pass appropriate orders, after hearing the parties concerned, as indicated in the order dated 21.1.2026.

¶37

In the light of the above stated position, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioners to seek recourse to Law, if any fresh cause of action arises. Needless to observe that the order, if any, passed by the respondent No.5 shall be communicated to the petitioners under proper acknowledgement. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶38

_____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J

¶39

March 05, 2026 vasu

M/s Swetha Purified Drinking Water v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Swetha Purified Drinking Water v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

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

M/S. Ravi Electricals Rewinding Works,Rep.by Prop.,Vskptm. Vs Transmission Corporation of a.P.Ltd.,Rep.by Ce.,Vskptm.,&Anr

Rpp Ltd., H. No. 1-B, (New No. 618) Arora Colony, Road No.3 Vs Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd.

Reddimallu Krishna Reddy, Kadapa Dt Vs Superintending Engineer, Apcpdcl., & 3

Byrapaneni Naresh Vs Vivek Yadav

Rain Cii Carbon (Vizag) Limited, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G. Guru Prasad, Vs B. Krishna Murthy