IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 70 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 26/12/2008 in WP NO : 26192 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Chief General Manager / O.E.C.S. Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Superintendent Engineer, Asst. Circle, Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam. 3 The Superintendant Engineer, Operation Circle, Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Srikakulam. 4 Senior Divisional Officer, Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Tekkali, Srikakulam District. 5 Senior Accounts Officer, Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Srikakulam. ..... APPELLANTS AND M/s. Shiva Sagar Paper & Chemical Ltd., Akkarada Village, Jalamuru Mandal, Srikakulam District, R. by its Managing Director V. Jagadish. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:MR.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: M/SC.KODANDA RAM The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy ) This writ appeal is filed against the order dated 26.12.2008 in W.P. No. 26192 of 2008, whereby the learned Judge while disposing of the writ petition directed the appellants to restore power supply to the unit of the respondent forthwith and that the restoration shall be subject to further orders that may be passed in R.P.I.A. No. 2436 of 2008 in R.P.I.A. No. 2393 of 2008 in R.P. No. 211 of 2008, pending before the A.P. State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (For short “the State Commission”). Heard Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants and Mr. C.Kodandaram, learned counsel for the respondent. The necessity of referring to detailed facts is obviated on account of the fact that the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that in pursuance of the direction given by the learned Single Judge in the order under appeal, power supply was restored on receipt of Rs.5,50,000/- from the respondent. Though several contentions are sought to be advanced by both the learned counsel, we are not inclined to entertain and adjudicate the same since the direction to restore the power supply was made by the learned Single Judge as an interim arrangement pending disposal of R.P.I.A. No. 2436 of 2008 filed by the appellants to vacate the interim order passed by the State Commission in R.P.I.A. No. 2393 of 2008 and rendering findings on merits is likely to prejudice the interests of the parties in the proceedings pending before the State Commission and the District Forum. Having regard to the restoration of power supply, the Writ Appeal is disposed of without going into merits of the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties with the direction to the State Commission to dispose of R.P.I.A. No. 2436 of 2008 in R.P. No. 211 of 2008 within a period of four weeks from today. It is needless to observe that the appellants would not disconnect power supply to the respondent unit till the disposal of vacate petition by the State Commission subject to the respondent continuing to pay regular C.C. charges, pending disposal of the applications by the State Commission. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. No order at to costs. _____________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari _________________________ Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy February 2, 2009 MAS