IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 21215 of 2008 Between: S.Narasimha Chary S/o. Narahari R/o. 3-14-21/C, Plot No.11, Srinivasapuram Colony, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Asst. Divisional Engineer, APCPDCL, Habsiguda, Area: Ramanthapur, Uppal, Kalan, Hyderabad, A.P. 2 The Divisional Engineer, Habsiguda Circle, Thirumalagiri, Secunderabad. 3 The Asst. Engineer, Habsiguda Circle, Uppal Calan, Hyderabad. 4 The Chairperson, APTRANSCO, Hyderabad, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, 5 The Accounts Officer, Habsiguda Circle, APCPDCL, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the respondents to disconnect the service connection No. 1501-06906, House bearing No.3-14- 21/C, Plot No. 11, Srinivasapuram Colony, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad without due possession of the law under principles of natural justice which is illegal, arbitrary and unjust. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. P.GOPAL DAS Counsel for the Respondents : Sri O.MANOHAR REDDY(SC FOR APTRANSCO) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.21215 OF 2008 ORDER : This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in disconnecting the Service Connection No.1501-06906 in respect of House bearing No.3-14- 21/C, Plot No.11, Srinivasapuram Colony, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad without due process of law as arbitrary and illegal. It is contended by the petitioner that he is the owner of house in question, that the service connection stands in his name and that he has been paying the consumption charges regularly and therefore the action of the respondents in disconnecting the power supply without there being any justifiable reason is arbitrary and illegal. However, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, under instructions, submitted that the service connection was transferred in the name of one Pannala Shekar in the ﬁrst week of May, 2008 and at his request the service connection was disconnected on 15.5.2008. It also appears that there is a title dispute between the petitioner and the said Pannala Shekar with regard to the house in question and both civil and criminal proceedings are pending before various Courts. Be that as it may, according to the respondents, the service connection as on today stands in the name of Pannala Shekar and the writ petitioner has nothing to do with the same. Though this Court cannot make any enquiry into such a disputed question of fact, since the petitioner made representation dated 15.5.2008 for restoration of power supply and the same has not been considered till today, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the said representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of one week from the date of receipt of this order. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by the order that may be passed by the respondents, it is open to him to challenge the same by working out the appropriate remedy before the proper forum. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 03.11.2008 gbs