THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28044 of 2009 Date: 19.7.2010 Between: Medisetty Appalanaidu and others. ..... PETITIONERS AND A.P. eastern Power Distribution Co. Ltd., and others. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri S. Sridhar Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: Sri O.Manohar Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : Sri M. Vidya Sagar The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28044 of 2009 Order: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal having regard to the nature of the dispute raised in the writ petition. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondents in seeking to disconnect the service connection of the petitioners without notice and without conducting proper enquiry on the representation made by respondent No.4 as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioners claim to be in possession of an open area situated in Salur on the road leading to Jaipur. Respondent No.4 claiming to be the owner of the property has filed two Civil Suits against the Government. The said suits, which were dismissed have been remanded by this Court in a Second Appeal. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioners are in occupation of the property in question running petty businesses. From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.4, it evident that there is a dispute between the petitioners and respondent No.4 as well in the matter of payment of rent. In this background, respondent No.4 made a representation to respondent No.1, wherein while claiming ownership over the property, he has stated that on the death of some of the original tenants, certain electricity service connections are being utilised by unauthorised persons other than the original consumers and that representations made to the Assistant Engineer and Assistant Divisional Engineer, Salur to take action against the persons, who are consuming electricity unauthorisedly even after the death of the registered consumers, did not yield any result and therefore, a request was made by respondent No.4 to take appropriate action to disconnect the unauthorised service connections being used by the petitioners herein. Apprehending that the respondents may initiate action on the representation of respondent No.4 for disconnecting the power supply, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. No counter affidavit is filed on behalf of any of the respondents. After carefully considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I am of the opinion that the writ petition is premature. So far no action has been initiated by any of the respondents for disconnection of the power supply to the petitioners’ premises. As rightly pointed out by Sri M. Vidya Sagar, learned counsel for respondent No.4, the writ petition is anticipatory in nature. In the absence of any action taken by respondent Nos. 1 to 3, no relief as claimed in this writ petition can be granted to the petitioners. However, as the petitioners have been utilising the electricity, any action for disconnection of power supply will cause detriment to their interests. If such an action is proposed on the basis of the representation of respondent No.4, in the interest of justice, it is necessary for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to issue notice to the petitioners calling for their explanation before taking any action on the said representation. It is only after considering the petitioners’ explanation, if any made, that further action can be taken by respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WVMP No. 1519 of 2010 and WPMP No. 36528 of 2009 are disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J DATE: 19th July, 2010 pnb