WRIT PETITION 15288of2013 on 8 December 1968

1. The Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited, rep.by its Divisional Engineer, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.by its Divisional Engineer, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

2. AssistantDivisionalEngineer,AndhraPradeshEasternPowerDistribution Company Limited, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.Distribution Company Limited, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that inthe circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court maybe pleased to issue a direction, order or Writ more particularly onein thenatureof Writ of Mandamus declaring the actionof the respondentsindisconnecting the power supply to the House of petitioner withoutpriornotice and without assigning any reasons as illegal, arbitrary and violative ofPrinciples of Natural Justice besides contrary to the[Provisions]ofIndianElectricity Act and consequently direct the respondents to restore the powersupplytotheServiceConnectionNo.11132200GW026353ofthepetitioner's House bearing Door No.14-4-24/3, Bhanoji thota. Ward No.50,Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP. NO: 18809 OF 2013)

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying thatin the[circumstances]stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may bepleased to direct the respondents to restore the power supply to the ServiceConnection No. 11132200GW 026353of thepetitioner's HousebearingDoor No.14-4-24/3, Bhanoji thota. Ward No.50, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam,pending disposal of the above writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI V V SATISH

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI T SRIRAM

The Court made the following: ORDER

' ^

APHC010171012025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT AMARAVATI(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3331]

MONDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF MAYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

WRIT PETITION NO: 15520/2013

Between:

Ch. Kamalarnma, Visakhapatnam

...PETITIONER

AND

Divisional Engineer APEPDCL Visakhapatnam Ano and...RESPONDENT( S)Others Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. VVSATISH

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. P ANAND SESHU (SC FOR APEPDCL)

The Court made the following ORDER:

Heard Ms. Priyanka, learned counsel for the petitioner[and]Sri T.SriRam, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2.

2. The above writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondentsin disconnecting the power supply to service connectionNo.11132200GW263F'^ givento the petitioner’s house bearing door No. 14-4-24/3,BhanojiThota, Ward No.50, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam, as illegal and arbitrary.in disconnecting the power supply to service connectionNo.11132200GW263F'^ givento the petitioner’s house bearing door No. 14-4-24/3,BhanojiThota, Ward No.50, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam, as illegal and arbitrary.

3. The averments, in brief, are that the petitioner purchased the plot fromBhanojirao under patta No.381 dated 08.12.1968 and thereafter the petitionerraised a thatched house and a petty shop. The petitioner was assigned houseNo. 14-4-24/3. The respondents, in pursuance of the application made by the"petitioner,releasedelectricityvideserviceconnectionNo.11132200GW26353. The petitioner has been paying the electricity bill regularly. When theBhanojirao under patta No.381 dated 08.12.1968 and thereafter the petitionerraised a thatched house and a petty shop. The petitioner was assigned houseNo. 14-4-24/3. The respondents, in pursuance of the application made by the"petitioner,releasedelectricityvideserviceconnectionNo.11132200GW26353. The petitioner has been paying the electricity bill regularly. When the municipalauthoritiesintendedtodemolishthepetitioner’shouse,thepetitionerfiledW.P.No.15288of2013.Whilethematterstoodthus,respondentNo.2disconnectedthepowersupplytotheaboveserviceconnection, without issuing any notice. Hence, the writ petition.

4. An interim order was granted on 03.06.2013 to restore the power supplyto service connection No. 11132200GV'\/ 26353 assigned to the petitioner’shouse bearing D.No.14-4-24/3.to service connection No. 11132200GV'\/ 26353 assigned to the petitioner’shouse bearing D.No.14-4-24/3.

5. A counter affidavit was filed by respondent No.2.It was contended thatthe office of the Tahsildar, Gajuwaka, issued a letter stating that the landshown by the applicant in survey No.83 is classified as ‘No Mand Land’ (i.e.Governmentland) andrequestedrespondent No.2tocancel the subjectservice connection. Accordingly, the service connection was disconnected on01.06.2013. The petitioner has not submitted any registered[document][ of][ the]subject property, except the house tax. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writpetition.the office of the Tahsildar, Gajuwaka, issued a letter stating that the landshown by the applicant in survey No.83 is classified as ‘No Mand Land’ (i.e.Governmentland) andrequestedrespondent No.2tocancel the subjectservice connection. Accordingly, the service connection was disconnected on01.06.2013. The petitioner has not submitted any registered[document][ of][ the]subject property, except the house tax. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writpetition.

■6.Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating[the][ averments][ in][ the]affidavit, would contend that respondent No.2 failed to adhere to the principlesof natural justice before disconnecting the power supply. Respondent No.2,having released tne power supply to the petitioner’s house, ought not to havedisconnected the power supply, without issuing any proceedings.affidavit, would contend that respondent No.2 failed to adhere to the principlesof natural justice before disconnecting the power supply. Respondent No.2,having released tne power supply to the petitioner’s house, ought not to havedisconnected the power supply, without issuing any proceedings.

7. Learned standing counsel would submit that power was[disconnected]on the instructions of the Tahsildar, Gajuwaka.on the instructions of the Tahsildar, Gajuwaka.

8. It is a settled principle of law that electricity is a basic amenity, w^"ich aperson cannot be deprivedof. The Hon’ble Apex Court,inDilip (Dead)ThroughLrs.v. Satish and Others^ while consideringdisconnectionofpower supply to a tenant, observed as follows:

N

“Itis now wellsettledproposition of law that electricityisabasicamenity of which a person cannot be deprived. Electricity[cannot][ be]declined to a tenant on the ground of failure/refusal of the landlord toissue no objection certificate. All that the electricity supply authority isrequired to examine is whether the applicant for electricity[connection]isin occupation of the premises in question.”

9. Inthecaseathandas seenfromthecounteraffidavitfiledbyrespondent No.2, power was disconnected without issuing any notice to thepetitioner, merely based on the letter addressed by the Taiisildar. Thus, theprocedure adhered to by respondent No.2 in disconnecting the power supplyis illegal and arbitrary. However, in pursuance of the interim order, power wasrestored to the petitioner, and the petitioner has been enjoying the powersupply.

10. At the hearing, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, on instructionssubm itted that power was again disconnected on 08.11.2024,[due]tonon-payment of the bills.It, being a subsequent event, this Court is not going intothat aspect.subm itted that power was again disconnected on 08.11.2024,[due]tonon-payment of the bills.It, being a subsequent event, this Court is not going intothat aspect.

11. Given the submission that power is restored in pursuance[of][ the][ interim]order, no further orders are required in this writ petition.order, no further orders are required in this writ petition.

12. Hence, this writ petition is closed. No costs.

This order will not preclude the petitioner to get the power restored bymaking the payments.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,[shall][ stand][ closed.]

//TRUE COPY//

Sd/- K.KASI RAO ACHARIASSISTANT REGISTRAR

To,

SECTION OFFICER

1. One CC to Sri V V Satish Advocate [OPUC]

2. One CC to Sri T Sriram, Advocate [OPUC]

3. One CC to Sri P Anand Seshu, SC for APEPDCL, AThri^Qo Advocate [OPUC]

HIGH COURT

DATED;05/05/2025

ORDERWP.No.15520 of 2013

CLOSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS