IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14781 of 2009 Between: Palepu Syamala Kumari W/o. Thaneesha R/o. D.No. 1-9-164, Georgepeta, Kapadipalem, Nellore. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Engineer A.P.Southern Power Distribunal Company Ltd., Rajendranagar, Nellore. 2 The Assistant Divisional Engineer A.P.Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd.,Vidyut bhavan, Opp. Rajarajeswari Temple, Dargamitta, Nellore. 3 Palepu Manoj Kumar S/o. Late Marianna R/o. D.No. 9-1-190 ( New No. 9-164 ) 1st Floor, Kapadipalem, Nellore. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.RAJASEKHAR Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2:MR. S.V.RAMANA FOR MR.O.MANOHAR REDDY(SC FOR APTRANSCO) The Court made the following : ORDER: In this writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not been disconnecting the power supply in respect of service connection No.146550 pertaining to house bearing No.9-164 (old door No.9-1-190) of Kapadipalem Village, SPSR Nellore District. At the hearing, Sri S.V.Ramana, learned counsel representing Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 placed before this Court a fax copy of notice issued by the petitioner under Section 80 CPC which contains endorsement of the departmental officials of the Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Limited and also of the petitioner showing that the power supply was disconnected on 16.06.2009 at 10.45 a.m. At the hearing, Sri P.Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after disconnection of power supply on 16.06.2009, the power supply was evidently restored. However, this fact is disputed by the learned counsel representing respondent Nos.1 and 2. The plea of respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the power supply was disconnected is placed on record. In the absence of any material produced by the petitioner to show that the supply was restored after disconnection, I find no reason to disbelieve the statement of the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of as infructuous with liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy, if power supply was restored after it was disconnected. As a sequel to disposal of main petition as infructuous, WPMP.No.19397 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 23rd JULY, 2009. kvni