Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/28930/2025 of SOMANDHEPALLI PRAVEENA Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 1 March 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION N Between: 1. SOMANDHEPALLI PRAVEENA, W/O G. PRAKASH REDDY, AGED 42 YEARS, R/O. PAAPIREDDY PALLE VILLAGE, BUDILI POST, GORANTIA
APHC010551842025
IN TH
MONDA
TWO
THE HONOURA
WRI
Between:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. SOMANDHEPALLI AGED
YEA BUDILI POST, GOR
1. THE STATE OF A SECRETARY, DE VELAGAPUDI, GUN
2. ANDHRA PRADESH LIMITED, REPRE DIRECTOR, VIJAY
3. THE SUPERINTEN SRI SATYA SAI DIS
4. THE EXECUTIVE SAI DISTRICT.
5. THE DEPUTY E CUSTOMER SERV SAI DISTRICT.
6. THE ASSISTANT DIVISION, SRI SAT
E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) AY,THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT ABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYAS IT PETITION No: 28930 of 2025 PRAVEENA, W/O G. PRAKA ARS, R/O. PAAPIREDDY PALL RANTIA MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI D AND ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS EPARTMENT OF ENERGY, S NTUR DISTRICT, AP. H SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTIO ESENTED BY ITS CHIEF AND YAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH. NDENT ENGINEER, APSPDCL, PU STRICT. ENGINEER, APSPDCL, HINDUPUR EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OPERA VICE APSPDCL, HINDUPUR DIVISIO DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, APSPDC TYA SAI DISTRICT. DESH
SURYA ASH REDDY, LE VILLAGE, DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER S PRINCIPAL SECRETARIAT, ON COMPANY D MANAGING UTTAPARTHY, R SRI SATYA ATIONS AND N, SRI SATYA L, HINDUPUR
7. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, APSPDCL, CHILAMATHUR, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT.
8. C.VIJAYAMMA, W/O. C. RAJA REDDY, AGED ABOUT UNKNOWN, R/O. NOW PAPIREDDYPALLI VILLAGE, GORANTIA MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. Ms.PANGULURU RACHANA Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. Mr.VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA SC FOR APSPDCL
2. GP FOR ENERGY
The Court made the following Order:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.K.Ashok, learned counsel appeared on behalf of Mr.Kota Venkata Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for APSPDCL appearing for respondents 2 to 7. Despite service of notice on respondent No.8, none entered appearance.
2. The writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents 4 to 7 in trying to disconnect the power supply by removing the name of the petitioner for the agricultural service connection bearing No.7312105000157 in respect of property admeasuring Ac.0.82 cents in Survey No.569/1 situated in Budili Village, Gorantla Mandal, as illegal, arbitrary etc., and for consequential directions.
3. The counsel for the petitioner made submissions with reference to the averments in the affidavit and the circumstances that led to filing of the present writ petition. She submits that at the instance of the 8th respondent, the respondents 4 to 7 were bent upon to disconnect the power to the petitioner’s agricultural service connection referred to above. She submits that before resorting to such an attempt, it is least expected that a prior notice giving opportunity to the petitioner, is issued. However, as such a procedure was not adhered to, the petitioner, having been left with no other alternative, is constrained to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. While stating that by virtue of the interim orders granted by this Court, the power supply to the subject matter connection was not disconnected, the learned counsel also drawn the attention to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 2 to 7. In Para No.10 of the counter-affidavit, it is inter alia stated as follows: “10. It is submitted that there is no cause of action against the respondent- Corporation. The service connection is active, no disconnection is made or proposed, and the administrative decision to maintain the record in the original consumer’s name is neither illegal nor arbitrary. The petitioner has approached this Court prematurely and without any infringement of her legal rights.”
4. In the light of the above stated position to the effect that there is no proposal to disconnect the power supply to the subject matter service connection, this Court deems it not necessary to examine the matter in detail.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, providing that no action in respect of the subject matter service connection shall be resorted to, except by following the procedure as contemplated under the General Terms and Conditions for supply of electricity and the principles of natural justice. No costs. Consequently, all pending applications shall stand closed.
__________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
Dt. 02.03.2026 BLV
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT PETITION No: 28930 of 2025 Date: 02.03.2026 BLV