IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTHDAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU * * * WP.No.21690 OF 2005 Between: P.Ranga Rao … Petitioner Versus The Divisional Engineer {Operations} APCPDCL, Habsiguda, Ranga Reddy district & Ors. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.V.RAMESH REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP for APCPDCL O R D E R : This writ petition is filed seeking mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in threatening to disconnect the Electricity supply to the service connection bearing SC.No.1501-9949, Category-II belongs to the petitioner for non-payment of outstanding balance without disposing his representation dated 22-10-2001 as illegal, arbitrary, null and contrary to Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider his representation dated 22-10- 2001. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. The petitioner is bound to pay surcharge amount, consumption charges and mere threatening to disconnect electricity supply to the service connection bearing SC.No.1501-9949 under category-II does not amount to any infringement of any statutory right. Even the petitioner did not give any reply to the notice. The Assistant Accounts Officer, ERO, APCPDCL addressed Lr.No.AAO/ERO/HBG/D.No.734, dated 27-9-2005 to the Assistant Engineer, Operations, Ramanthapur, requesting him to disconnect the service the service and furnish the reasons for not disconnection so far and also conform with e-seva manager as to how the payments are being accepted every month without surcharge and outstanding amount. Therefore, the above letter is the internal correspondence between the Assistant Accounts Officer and the Assistant Engineer. Therefore, in the absence of any infringement of statutory right, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. However, it is made clear that the representation dated 22-10-2001 made by the petitioner is pending with the third respondent and appropriate decision has to be taken by the third respondent in accordance with law within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. OCTOBER 05th, 2005. -------------------- I s L. K.C. BHANU , J.