IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.355 of 2011 Between: Gudapati Vinod Vijaya Kumar … Petitioner And Southern Power Distribution Co., of A.P., Ltd., Vijayawada, Krishna District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Ms. Niyatha for Sri N. Siva Reddy Counsel for the respondents: Sri S.V. Ramana for Sri O. Manohar Reddy Standing Counsel for APSPDCL This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.355 of 2011 ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “… Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing new service connection to the dwelling house of the petitioner bearing Door No.29-16-22/4, C.S.I. Compound, Prakasam Road, Suryaraopet, Vijayawada, Krishna District even after complying with all formalities, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents to release service connection for supply of power forthwith to the above said premises of the petitioner.” At the hearing, Sri S.V. Ramana representing Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Standing counsel for APSPDCL, placed before the Court proceedings Lr.No.AE/O/S.Peta/F.No.Doc/D.No.543/10, dated 01.12.2010, of the Assistant Engineer Operation, APSPDCL, Vijayawada, whereby he has rejected the petitioner’s application for release of power supply. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that his client has not been supplied with a copy of the said rejection order. A perusal of the rejection order, placed before the Court, would show that there is an endorsement to the effect “refused to take the notice”. Evidently, the petitioner avoided the said rejection order. Be that as it may, the learned counsel representing the respondents undertakes to supply a copy of the rejection order to the counsel for the petitioner to enable the latter to question the same. For the abovementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed without going into the merits of the case with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy for questioning the rejection order. As a sequel, WPMP.No.450 of 2011 is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 14.11.2011 ES