Petitioner challenged illegal disconnection of electricity supply. Court dismissed writ petition holding that remedy was already available before the District Consumer Forum and party cannot seek parallel remedies.
Liberty to the petitioner to pursue the remedy already availed by him before the District Consumer Forum.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
Writ Petition No.32720 of 2010
DT.27.12.2010
Between:
Kasukurthi Sundararao
… Petitioner
And
The Chairman & Managing Director, APSPDCL, Srinivasapuram, Tirupathi, Chittoor District and others
… Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri G.L.Nageswara Rao
Counsel for respondents: Sri O.Manohar Reddy
The Court made the following ORDER:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in disconnecting power supply to the petitioner’s service connection bearing No.96751 to his house bearing D.No.5-98-58/8c, Beckor’s Compound, A.E.L.Church Compound, Main Road, Brodipet, Guntur, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to restore power supply.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
The petitioner has averred that he is in occupation of a shed belonging to A.E.L.Church, Guntur with the permission of its owner and has been using the same for residential purpose by paying rent of
Rs.200/- per month from 31.03.2000. That on his paying security deposit of Rs.2,225/- on 14.07.2008, power supply was released with the abovementioned service connection. He has further averred that respondent No.4 has disconnected the power supply without prior notice and that on his request, a meter was installed on 16.04.2010 and power supply was restored. That on 21.04.2010, respondent No.4 has again disconnected the power supply, aggrieved by which action, the petitioner has approached the District Consumer Forum, Guntur by way of C.C.No.187 of 2010 and the said case is pending. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking restoration of power supply.
In my opinion, having already availed a remedy before the competent forum, the petitioner cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that the District Consumer Forum, which entertained his complaint, is not competent to grant the relief claimed in this writ petition. The law is well settled that a person cannot avail parallel remedies.
In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the remedy already availed by him.
As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.41583 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J)
Date: 27.12.2010 VGB
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when a remedy is already available before the District Consumer Forum.
Whether the petitioner has a right to avail parallel remedies by approaching the court for writ relief.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kasukurthi Sundararao
The Chairman & Managing Director, APSPDCL
C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
