WA/1831/2008 of Smt.G.Rajya Lakshmi, Vs The Assistant Divisional Engineer,Opeartion Town2, on 31 December 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMAand

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

WRIT APPEAL No.1831 of 2008

(Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated06/12/2007 in WP NO : 25862 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.)06/12/2007 in WP NO : 25862 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.)

Between:

Smt.G.Rajya Lakshmi, W/o.Subba Rao, HinduDr.No.5-87-47/4,Chandramoulinagar,6th Line, Guntur Dist

..... APPELLANT

AND

1 The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Opeartion Town2, A.P S.P.D.C.Ltd., Guntur Dist 2 Divisional Engineer Electrical, Operation, A.P,S.P.D.C.Ltd,Red Cross Buildings, Near Medical College,Guntur 3 Sri Rayapati Srinivasa Rao, Rep.by his G.P.A Smt.R.Sujani, R/o.D.No.4-4-63,1st Line,Chndramoulinagar,Guntur Dist

.....RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Appellant : SMT.K.SESHARAJYAM

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 : MR.O.MANOHER REDDY

The Court made the following :

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R. VARMAANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAHWRIT APPEAL No.1831 of 2008

ORAL JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma)

Heard Smt. K.Sesharajyam, learned counsel appearing for theappellant as well as the learned Standing Counsel for Andhra PradeshSouthern Power Distribution Company Limited (APSPDCL) appearing forrespondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. This writ appeal is directed against the order, dated 06-12-2007, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court inW.P.No.25862 of 2007.

3. Appellant is petitioner and respondents are respondents in the writpetition.

4. For the sake of convenience, in this judgment, the parties will bereferred to as per their array in the writ petition.

5. It appears that service connection No.53589 has been obtained bythe father of the petitioner in respect of the property in question i.e.,Rayapati Veeraiah Ginning Mill, situated at Amaravathi Road, Guntur, andthe same had been transferred in the name of the petitioner, by virtue ofthe alleged registered Will, dated 05-03-1999, said to have been executedby her late father. Subsequently, it appears that there is a dispute betweenthe petitioner and the third respondent regarding the rights over thedisputed property, which is subject matter of the pending suit O.S.No.160of 2004 and some other litigation.

6. Therefore, the dispute is between the petitioner and the thirdrespondent as regards the rights over the disputed property and theservice connection, incidentally, relates to the said property. Further more,as already pointed out, initially the service connection was issued in thename of the late father of the petitioner and the same had been transferredin petitioner’s name and, therefore, while cancelling the said serviceconnection through the proceedings, dated 02-12-2006, which isimpugned in the writ petition, it is just and proper for the authorities to hearthe petitioner also, notwithstanding the pending litigation before the CivilCourt as regards the property rights between the petitioner and the thirdrespondent.

7. Therefore, we feel it appropriate to dispose of the writ appealdirecting respondent No.2 to give a reasonable opportunity to both thepetitioner as well as the third respondent before passing any final order.Pending consideration of the issue by respondent No.2, the order, dated02-12-2006, issued by respondent No.2 shall not be given effect to.

8. With the above observations and directions, the writ appeal isdisposed of, at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs.

________________________

JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA

__________________________

JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

31-12-2008.Msr.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R. VARMAAND

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

WRIT APPEAL No.1831 of 2008

31-12-2008(Msr)