IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9557 of 2004 Between: Pericherla Venkata Satyanarayana Raju s/o Narayana Raju R/o Raja Pangidigudem Village, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal, West Godavari District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Divisional Engineer, (Operations) The A.P. Eastern Power Distribution Company Ltd., Eluru, West Godavari District 2 The Asst. Divisional Engineer, (Operations) The A.P. Eastern Power Distribution Company Ltd., Bhimadolu,, West Godavari District 3 The Asst. Engineer, (Operations & Maintenance) The A.P. Eastern Power Distribution Company Ltd., Dwaraka Tirumala,Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal West Godavari District .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents 1 to 3, in removing the existing electrical lines supplying electrical power to the Petitioner's Bore Well without there being any default by the petitioner, causing in ordinate delay in restoring the power supply to the petitioner's Bore Well as highly illegal, arbitrary, unlawful, contrary to the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 in discharging the statutory duty, and violative of the legal rights of the petitioner contemplated under the electricity Act, consequently direct the respondent authorities to restore the electricity power supply tot he petitioners Borewell bearing S.C. No. 370 of Raja Pangidigudem Village, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal of West Godavari District. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.MURALI KRISHNA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: O.MANOHAR REDDY(SC FOR APTRANSCO) The Court made the following : ORDER: There is no representation for the petitioner. Heard the learned standing counsel for the respondents. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner, who is an agriculturist, seeks a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in removing the electrical lines, which were laid for supplying power to petitioner’s borewell, without giving notice to him, as illegal and arbitrary. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition it is stated that the petitioner is an agriculturist, owning an extent of land admeasuring Acs.10.00, situate at Raja Pangidigudem Village, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal, West Godavari District. The petitioner says that he purchased the borewell with existing electricity power supply connection bearing service No.370 from, one, Kothapally Jagapathi Raju, for the purpose of water to his agricultural lands. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the electricity supply wires laid for supplying power to his borewell were removed, though there are no arrears by the petitioner on account of consumption charges. At the stage of admission, this Court granted interim order for restoration of power supply to the borewell of the petitioner. Though the Writ Petition is of the year 2004, no counter-affidavit is filed by the respondents and interim order passed by this Court continued all along. It is submitted by the learned standing counsel for the respondents that pursuant to interim order, power supply was already restored to the borewell of the petitioner and the electricity power supply is being supplied to the petitioner’s borewell, as per the terms and conditions of the supply. In the absence of any counter-affidavit and as it is stated that respondents have already restored the electricity power supply to the borewell of the petitioner, I dispose of the Writ Petition directing the respondents to continue the electricity power supply to the borewell of the petitioner as per the terms and conditions of supply framed under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. It is needless to observe that if the petitioner violates any terms and conditions of supply, this order will not preclude the respondents from taking appropriate action after giving notice and opportunity to the petitioner. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J. 18th June, 2009. skmr