WP/24918/2004 of Teta Venkata Ramana Rao, Vs The Divisional Engineer, on 31 December 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

WRIT PETITION NO : 24918 of 2004

Between:

Teta Venkata Ramana Rao, S/o. Late Venkata Chalapathi Rao,D.No. 15/503, Edepally, Machilipatnam, Krishna District.

AND

..... PETITIONER

1 The Divisional Engineer, A.P. Southern Power Distribution Corporation Ltd. Machilipatnam, Krishna District. Machilipatnam, Krishna District.

2 The Assistant Additional Engineer, A.P. Southern Power DistributionCorporation Ltd., Machilipatnam. Corporation Ltd., Machilipatnam.

3 The Assistant Engineer (Electricals), A.P. Southern Power DistributionCorporation Ltd., Machilipatnam.Corporation Ltd., Machilipatnam.

.....RESPONDENT(S)

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased toissue a writ, order, direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamusdeclaring the action of the respondents in disconnecting the power supply in respectof SC No. 26521 and S.C. 32560 provided for D.No. 15/503, Edepally,Machilipatnam, Krishan District without issuing any notice as arbitrary, illegalviolative of principles of natural justice and also contra to the section 56 of theElectricity Act, 2003 and consequently direct the respondents to restore the powersupply forthwith.

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.SOMASEKHAR

Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.M.VINOBHA DEVI, Standing Counsel forAPSPDC Ltd.

The Court at the stage of admission made the following ORDER:

The petitioner is extended power supply under two separate connections namely,SC.No.26521 and S.C.No.32560. Out of them, one falls into the domestic categoryand the other into the commercial category. The respondents have disconnected thepower supply to both the connections on 16-11-2004. The petitioner was not issuedany notice, much less any proceedings. He challenges the action of therespondents.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for therespondents.

The power supply to the petitioner was disconnected by the respondents withoutissuing any notice and without passing any orders. On instructions from therespondents, the learned Standing Counsel submits that the power supply wasdisconnected on the ground that the petitioner has drawn the power supply fromdomestic connection, for commercial use. Even if the same is true, the petitionerneeds to be put on notice and given, an opportunity to explain the charge againsthim. There does not exist any justification for disconnecting the supply on the basisof mere presumptions and without issuing any proceedings. If a consumercommitted default in payment of the consumption charges, such a notice is notnecessary. The petitioner contends that there are no outstanding dues from him.

Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the respondents shallrestore the supply to the petitioner forthwith, in case, there are no arrears of amountis due from the petitioner towards the consumption charges. In case, the petitionerhad resorted to any malpractices or pilferage, it shall be open to the respondents totake necessary steps after restoration of the supply and after issuing notice to the 31[st] DECEMBER, 2004.

__________________________

(L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J)

Note: wire at party’s costs.

B/o

kvni/sh

To

1 The Divisional Engineer, A.P. Southern Power Distribution Corporation Ltd. Machilipatnam, Krishna District. Machilipatnam, Krishna District.

2 The Assistant Additional Engineer, A.P. Southern Power DistributionCorporation Ltd., Machilipatnam. Corporation Ltd., Machilipatnam.

3 The Assistant Engineer (Electricals), A.P. Southern Power DistributionCorporation Ltd., Machilipatnam.Corporation Ltd., Machilipatnam.

4 Two CD copies.