IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4934 of 2008 Between: Sola Samrajyam W/o Venkateshwara Rao R/o Seetharamapuram, Hamlet of Edara Agiripally madnal, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Gram Panchayat, Seetharampuram, rep by its Sarpanch, Agripally Mandal, Krishna District. 2 Asst. Engineer.A.P. Southern power Distribution Company, (Operation Circle), Agripally, Krishna District. 3 Mandal Revenue Officer, Agiripaly, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.R.K.CHAKRAVARTHY Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 3: None appeared Counsel for Respondent No.2: MR. S.V.RAMANA FOR MR. O.MANOHAR REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in disconnecting the power supply to the petitioner’s house at the instance of respondent Nos.1 and 3 as illegal. The petitioner claimed to have purchased land admeasuring 127 sq.yards in R.S.No.383/18 of Seetharamapuram Village, Agiripally Mandal, Krishna District under registered sale deed, dated 30.06.2003 from its purported original owner M.Tirupathaiah and his sons. The petitioner got a thatched house constructed on the said land and she claims that the property was assessed by the Grampanchayat and respondent No.2 released service connection bearing No.111. The petitioner alleged that respondent No.2 at the instance of respondent Nos.1 and 3 disconnected the power supply to the petitioner’s house without any notice. Sri S.V.Ramana, learned counsel representing Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company submitted that as respondent No.3 addressed a letter to respondent No.2 that the petitioner encroached into the land belonging to the Government, respondent No.2 disconnected the power supply. He, however, fairly conceded that before the said action was taken, respondent No.2 has not issued any notice to the petitioner. In the view I am taking, there is no need to issue notices to respondent Nos.1 and 3. The law is well settled that before any action, which is likely to affect the interests of a person, is taken, such a person shall be put on notice and given an opportunity of hearing. This principle is indeed manifested by Condition No.17.2 of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply of Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, which reads as under: “17.2 Disconnection due to Non-possession of Licence Where the consumer requires a licence or permission from any statutory authority or any authority of the Government to run the business/industry, or permission for lifting of water wherever necessary for purposes of irrigation, or for any other purpose for which he seeks or availing supply of electricity or for locating such business/industry/pump set or any other equipment at the place where he is receiving such supply and where the conduct of his said business/industry/activity at such place becomes un- lawful by reasons of his failure to obtain initially or secure the continuance of such licence or permission, the Designated Officer of the Company in this regard may, if desired by the concerned statutory or any other competent authority of the Government, after giving notice calling for explanation and after considering the same discontinue supply without forfeiting the rights of the Company under the Agreement with the consumer. Provided that in the cases where specified directions in writing are issued by AP Pollution Control Board in exercise of the powers vested with it under Section 33(A) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974, to disconnect power supply to any industrial unit, the designated Designated Officer of the Company shall comply with such directions without the necessity of issuance of the notice mentioned in this clause.” In this case, as respondent No.2 failed to follow the procedure under Condition No.17.2, which is reproduced above, he is directed to restore the power supply to the petitioner’s house forthwith. Liberty is, however, given to respondent No.2 to follow the procedure envisaged in Condition No.17.2 before taking action against the petitioner. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 10th MARCH, 2008 Note: furnish c.c. in three (3) days. B/o kvni