THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO.26719 OF 2010 DATED: 25-08-2011. BETWEEN: M/S SAIRAM INDUSTRIES KUCHENPALLI, HUSNABAD MANDAL, KARIMNAGAR DISTRICT. REP. BY ITS PROP.V.SOBHARANI .. PETITIONER AND THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER OPERATIION, COMMERCIAL & IPC NORTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD (APNPDCL), OPP. REC PETROL BUNK, WARANGAL AND OTHERS .. RESPONDENTS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO.26719 OF 2010 O R D E R : Heard Sri.K.Rama Krishna Reddy, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. With the consent of both the learned counsel the writ petition is being disposed of finally. The grievance of the petitioner is that while he has applied for providing 24 hours power supply line for its unit, which was sanctioned and approved by the 1st respondent vide proceedings dated 10.11.2009 and by the proceedings of the Superintending Engineer, dated 16.11.2009, the estimated amount of Rs.2,54,783/- payable by the petitioner has already been deposited by the petitioner, but inspite of that, the work, as required, has not been completed by the respondents. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit accepting that as per the approval and the payment made by the petitioner the work of laying 11 KV line was taken up by the licensed contractor and he has already erected 38 poles and completed stringing work for 15 poles, but however on account of objections by the local villagers the rest of the work was held up. It is also stated that there was damage caused to four of the poles by the local people resulting in registration of Crime No.76 of 2010 at the instance of the Additional Assistant Engineer/Operation/Husnabad against the offenders. It is stated that while the work is so held up in order to facilitate completion of the work through alternate way, a letter was addressed to the petitioner dated 28.7.2010 requesting his consent for the revised estimate for the alternate route and since the petitioner has not given the consent, the work could not be completed. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner points out that a letter dated 22.7.2010 was already submitted by the petitioner to the Divisional Electrical Engineer/Operation/Karimnagar with copies to all the authorities, wherein the petitioner has already indicated his undertaking to pay excess amount over the previous estimate for arranging supply through alternate route. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the said letter of the petitioner dated 22.7.2010 is no doubt earlier to the respondents letter dated 28.7.2010 but in any case the respondents need the consent from the petitioner and that there is no reason to delay the completion of the work. Since the grievance of the petitioner lies in a very narrow compass and there is absolutely no controversy with regard to the petitioner undertaking to pay excess amount over the estimated amount in case of necessity being had for resorting to alternate route for supply, the only question that needs resolution is whether the consent already given by the petitioner on 22.7.2010 should hold good for the consent as required by the respondents in their letter dated 28.7.2010. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has fairly made a submission and reiterates that the petitioner’s letter dated 22.7.2010 already given by him categorically undertakes that the petitioner shall pay any amount in excess of the previous estimate even if supply line is taken from an alternate route. As per the learned Senior Counsel’s statement the said consent on behalf of the petitioner holds good even in response to the respondents’ letter dated 28.7.2010 and as such there is no impediment for the respondents to take up and complete the work for supplying 24 hours power supply to the petitioner. In view of the said statement of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, there is no impediment for the respondents to complete the work by treating the consent of the petitioner, as reiterated by learned Senior Counsel. In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: a) The respondents shall now prepare a revised estimate and serve the same on the petitioner within two weeks from today; b) The petitioner shall remit excess amount over and above the estimated amount already paid by the petitioner within two weeks and on such intimation and on receipt of payment from the petitioner as above, the respondents shall take up and complete the work expeditiously so as to ensure that there is no further loss of time. Dated: 25-08-2011. ( VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR ) CC IN TWO DAYS Tnb THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITIION NO.26719 OF 2010 DATED: 25-08-2011. tnb