THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.21570 of 2010 DT.18.01.2011 Between: Mohammed Akber … Petitioner And A.P.Central Power Distribution Company Ltd., and others … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Md.Adam Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2: Sri S.V.Ramana For Sri O.Manohar Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4: None appeared The Court made the following ORDER: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in removing the electricity connection bearing No.P2- 024863, relating to ground floor of house bearing No.16-11-16/G/S/18 of Afzal Nagar, Malakpet, Hyderabad as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a direction to restore power supply. I have heard Sri Md.Adam, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri S.V.Ramana, learned counsel, representing Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. No one appeared for respondent Nos.3 and 4 despite service of notice on them. The petitioner claims to be the tenant of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in respect of the above-mentioned premises and running business in ice cream in the said premises. Obviously, dispute between the petitioner and respondent Nos.3 and 4 arose relating to tenancy of the premises. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that he has filed O.S.No.2423 of 2010 in the Court of XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, for permanent injunction and that in I.A.No.344 of 2010, the said Court granted interim order in his favour. According to the petitioner, the suit is still pending and the interim order is subsisting. The immediate cause on which the petitioner filed the present writ petition is disconnection of power supply by respondent No.2 on 26.08.2010. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, wherein respondent No.2 has stated that respondent No.4 is the registered consumer and that on receipt of a representation given by her requesting for disconnection of power supply, the supply was disconnected. It is further stated that the petitioner can seek supply of power by producing the documents to show that he is in lawful possession of the property and depositing three months’ average consumption charges for continuance of power supply. The facts pleaded by the petitioner relating to the existence of dispute between him and the landlords, who are respondent Nos.3 and 4, remain uncontraverted. Under the extant Regulations framed by respondent No.1 governing power supply, if a person is not the registered consumer, he can seek continuance of power supply subject to his showing that he is in lawful possession and also indemnifying the licensee against any loss that may be caused in continuing the power supply. The fact that the petitioner is able to obtain an order from the competent Court in a civil suit shows that he is in lawful occupation of the property at the moment. Obviously for indemnification, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have come out with the stand that the petitioner can seek continuance of power supply by depositing three months’ average consumption charges. In my opinion, this demand is justifiable and is inconsonance with the Regulations governing power supply. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with the direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to continue the power supply, subject to the petitioner depositing to the credit of respondent No.1 three months’ average consumption charges towards indemnity within a period of one month from today. Continuance of power supply is subject to the result of the pending civil suit. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, the interim order, dated 27.08.2010, granted by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.27420 of 2010 shall stand vacated and W.P.M.P.No.27420 of 2010 and W.V.M.P.No.5346 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date:18.01.2011 VGB