Allowed

D. Gopal v. The Asst. Divisional Engineer

Telangana HC18 Jun 2009WP/11011/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by a domestic electricity consumer seeking mandamus against illegal disconnection and non-notice. The court observed supply was disconnected due to a third-party title dispute but later restored. The court disposed of the petition directing respondents to continue supply per statutory terms.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to continue electricity supply as per the terms and conditions of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948.

D. Gopal Vs The Asst. Divisional Engineer — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11011 of 2004

¶5

Between:

¶6

D. Gopal S/o. Chennarayadu R.D.T.pital Kalyandurg town, Anantapur District.

¶7

PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

1 The Asst. Divisional Engineer, A.P.C.P.D.C.L. Kalyandurg, Anantapur Dist.

¶10

2 The Asst. Engineer, APCPDCL,Kalyandurg, Anantapur Dist.

¶11

3 K. Vishwanath Pasupanna

¶12

Bekary Road, Kalyandurg, Anantapur District.

¶13

.....RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to Issue appropriate writ more particularly Issue writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents trying to disconnect the petitioner domestic electricity supply, with out giving notice, and with out following due process of law, though the petitioner paid the current electricity charges, is been illegal, unjust, arbitrary,

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner : KOTHAPALLI RAM MOHAN CHOWDARY

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent No.: O.MANOHAR REDDY(SC FOR APTRANSCO)

¶17

The Court made the following :

¶18

ORDER :

¶19

No representation on behalf of the petitioner.

¶20

Heard the learned standing counsel for the respondents.

¶21

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in trying to disconnect his domestic electricity supply without giving notice, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶22

The case of the petitioner is that after the payment of all the necessary charges by him for extending the power supply for his domestic power consumption, electricity was released to his houses vide service connection Nos.7104 and 7124 dated 30-042004 and 26-05-2004 respectively. It is stated that based on the dispute raised by the third respondent over the title of the petitioner, the electricity supply was disconnected.

¶23

Though no counter-affidavit is filed, it is submitted by the learned standing counsel for the respondents that subsequently the electricity service was restored to the premises of the petitioner on

¶24

16-06-2004 and the petitioner has paid necessary developmental charges and security deposit.

¶25

As much as the electricity service connection to the premises of the petitioner was disconnected merely on the dispute

¶26

raised by a third party, such a course was not open to the respondents to disconnect the power supply.

¶27

As much as it is stated that power supply is already restored by issuing reconnection on 16-06-2004, I dispose of the Writ Petition directing the respondents to continue the supply as per the terms and conditions of supply framed under Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948.

¶28

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶29

____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J. 18^th June, 2009.

¶30

skmr

D. Gopal v. The Asst. Divisional Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D. Gopal v. The Asst. Divisional Engineer

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

Kamat Restaurant, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Gurudatta Aqua Mineralas, Pedapadu, Vs The Assistant Accounts Officer

Sripath Rao Naik, S/o. Bheem Rao Naik, Vs The Asst. Engineer, A.P. Transco

Akula Srinivasa, Vs The Central Power Distribution company of a.P.Ltd.

M/s.Shark Sea Foods (P)Ltd., Vs The Suptd.Engineer (Op)

Sri Kona Rama Rao, Vs The Superintendenting Engineer