Disposed

Smt v.Lakshmi Bai, v. The Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Company

Telangana HC17 Jun 2010WP/21436/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition for a declaration of illegal inaction in denying power connection via poles. Court, lacking a counter-affidavit on feasibility, disposed of the petition by directing the authority to consider the petitioners representation within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Authorities directed to consider petitioners representation for pole connection within three weeks.

Smt v.Lakshmi Bai, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Central… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶5

W.P. No.21436 of 2009

¶6

Between:

¶7

Smt.V.Laksmi Bai and another

¶8

… Petitioners

¶9

And

¶10

The A.P.C.P.D.C.L. Hyd., and another

¶11

Respondents

¶12

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶13

W.P. No.21436 of 2009

¶14

ORDER:

¶15

This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of

¶16

Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in giving electricity direct connection from nearby pole to the petitioners H.No.36-17/1, Boosareddyguda, Thokatta Village (Picket) Secunderabad, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and consequently to direct the respondents to give electricity connection directly from nearby pole to the petitioners.

¶17

The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the 2^nd petitioner purchased house bearing No.3-6-170/1 in Survey No.67 (Old) and new Survey No.169/1, admeasuring 134 square yards situated at Boosareddyguda, Thokatta village (Picket) Secunderabad Cantonment from the 1^st petitioner but the 2^nd petitioner and her husband have not changed the customer name of electricity connection C2025489 from the name of the 1^st petitioner and paying the bills regularly.

¶18

It is submitted that the respondents had supplied the power connection to the consumers in the colony through the underground cable connection though the electrical poles were erected nearby their houses. Due to frequent repairs to the underground cable, the respondents are stopping the power supply, some times even for 3 to 4

¶19

days are taking to reactivate the power supply. In this regard, they have made several oral and telephone complaints to the respondents to rectify the defect, provide the power connection from poles directly, instead of through cable but the respondents are not considering their request, hence, the present writ petition.

¶20

It is not the case of the petitioners that they have no electricity connection but they have the same through the underground cable. There are electricity poles nearby the petitioner’s house and on account of the repairs to be carried out by the respondents to the underground cable, the respondents are stopping the power supply, due to which, the petitioners are causing much inconvenience. Therefore, they need power connection through the nearby poles.

¶21

It is for the authorities to provide power connection to the consumers in the manner in which they have to provide to all the consumers and it is not for the petitioners to chose the connection in their own manner. However, having regard to the difficulty experienced by the petitioners in getting the power connection through the underground cable, the petitioners seem to have made oral complaints to the respondents requesting them to provide the power supply through the nearest pole.

¶22

No counter affidavit has been filed as to whether it is possible for the respondents to provide the power connection through the nearest pole. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction:

¶23

The petitioners are at liberty to make representation to the respondents seeking power connection in the manner in which they like, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, on making such representation,

¶24

the respondents are directed to consider the same and pass

¶25

appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of three weeks thereafter.

¶26

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of, at the threshold. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶27

___________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 17.06.2010. LSK

Smt v.Lakshmi Bai, v. The Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt v.Lakshmi Bai, v. The Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.Dhanalakshmi Devi Vs The District Registrar,Ramnagar, Anantapur

Chalapathi Chit Fund Private Ltd., Guntur Vs Mr. Adsumalli Malleswara Rao

N. Srinivasan Vs a. Madhavachari

Jeevaraj Barde Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer,Kamareddy,Nizamabad

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Vs Sri Ch. Hanman Singh

Indian Hair Industries (P) Ltd. Vs Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Vari Devasthanam