Dismissed

M. Sreenivasulu v. Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Sept 2026WP/6603/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court closed the writ petition challenging illegal power disconnection proceedings. Since the petitioner paid the entire adjudicated amount and cleared dues during the petition's pendency, the Court held no further orders were required.

What did the court decide?

Petition closed with no further orders; miscellaneous applications, if any, also closed.

M. Sreenivasulu Vs Southern Power… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

[3329]

¶2

APHC010407792016

¶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

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 6603/2016

¶9

Between:

¶10

M. SREENIVASULU, S/ O. M. KONDANNA, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SIDDARAMPURAM ROAD, B.K.SAMUDRAM, B.K.SAMUDRAM MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF ANDHRA PRADESH, LIMITED, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶14

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER OPERATION APSPDCL, ANANTAPURAMU, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT.

¶15

THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER/ DPE APSPDCL ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT DIVISIONAL ENGINEER OPERATION/EAST, ANDHRA PRADESH SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT.

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

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 a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the proceedings of the 4th respondent issued in Lr.No.ADE/R/ E/ ATP/ 4., Er/PE/ D.No.422/2015, dated 31.10.2015, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the general terms and conditions of supply and consequentially set aside the same and pass

¶19

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP 8408 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 direct the 4th respondent to restore the power supply to the petitioner premises by suspending the proceedings of the 4th respondent issued in Lr.No. ADE/ R/ E/ ATP/ Sub.Er/ PE/ D.No.422/ 2015, dated 31.10.2015, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶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 pleased to vacate the interim orders dated 09.03.2016 passed by this Hon'ble Court in WP No. 6603 of 2016 and pass

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶25

1.K NARSI REDDY

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

1.Y.NAGI REDDY (APSPDCL)

¶28

2.Venkata Rama Rao Kota SC FOR APSPDCL

¶29

3.JAGARLAMUDIKOTESWARIDEVI(SC FORAPSPDCL)

¶30

¶31

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO.6603 OF 2016

¶32

ORDER:-

¶33

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

¶34

claiming the following direction:

¶35

“ Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the proceedings of the 4th respondent issued in Lr No ADE/R/ E/ ATP/ 4 Er/PE/ D No 422/2015 dated 31 10 2015 as illegal arbitrary and contrary to the general terms and conditions of supply and consequentially set aside the same and pass ”

¶36

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶37

The petitioner has filed the present Writ petition challenging the proceedings, dated 31.10.2015, issued by the 4^th respondent, whereby, the respondent demanded the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.3,06,373/- due to theft caused by the petitioner. Pursuant to the Interim Order, dated 09.03.2016, directed the petitioner to deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- and further directed the respondents to restore the service connection of the petitioner. According, the petitioner deposited the entire amount and the service connection was restoration.

¶38

After the lapse of nearly one decade during the pendency of the Writ Petition, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents has placed on record the Written Instructions submitted by the Deputy Executive Engineer, Rurals

¶39

East Sub-Division, Anantapuramu and stated as here under:-

¶40

“Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. This Hon'ble Court on 09.03.2016 issued Interim directions that "There shall be interim directions on condition of the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh only) the power connection of the petitioner's unit shall be restored. However, enquiry may go on and the payment of Rs.1, 00,000/- shall be subject to

¶41

¶42

final assessment orders that may be passed in the enquiry." The petitioner has paid the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-on 11.03.2016 and accordingly the power supply has been restored. Further the petitioner has paid the remaining assessment amount in month by month along with the C.C.Charges and cleared the amount by 14.11.2016 as last payment voluntarily without any protest.”

¶43

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel

¶44

appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and in view of the aforesaid Written Instructions, it is clear and categorical that, during the pendency of the Writ Petition, the petitioner has paid the entire amount due to the respondents.

¶45

Therefore, in view of the petitioner having paid the entire amount due,

¶46

no further orders are required to be passed in this writ petition.

¶47

Accordingly, writ petition is closed. No costs.

¶48

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand

¶49

closed.

¶50

_____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

Date: 11.09.2026

BSM

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶55

WRIT PETITION NO.6603 OF 2016

¶56

Date: 11.09.2026

¶57

¶58

BSM

M. Sreenivasulu v. Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Sreenivasulu v. Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh

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