IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 21816 of 2008 Between: Hasanuddin, S/o. Ahmed Badruddin, R/o. 11-3-938/939, Mallepally, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chief General Manager, AP Central Power Distribution Company Ltd. Singareni Bhavan, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 2 The Divisional Engineer Assessment-I, APCPDCL, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad. 3 The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Gosha Mahal, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to open the seal put on the premises bearing No. 11-3-939, Mallepally, Vijyanagar Colony, Hyderabad and hand over possession to the petitioner in the interest of justice and principles of natural justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VINOD KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: MR.O.MANOHER REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner claims to be the owner of premises, bearing No.11-3-939, Mallepally, Vijayanagar Colony, Hyderbad and that it was leased to one Mr.M.A.Kareem. The tenant is said to have obtained electricity supply connection, for the premises. The authorities of the A.P. Central Power Distribution Company, noticed instances of pilferage of power in the connection. Therefore, they issued an order of assessment, dated 23.07.2004. Challenging the same, the tenant filed W.P.No.6103 of 2006. The writ petition was admitted and no interim order was granted therein. By engaging a different advocate, the individual filed another W.P.No.12110 of 2007, in which, an order of interim stay was granted. When W.P.No.12110 of 2007 was taken up for hearing, it was noticed that the same individual filed another writ petition. Therefore, this Court summoned the petitioner therein. Since he did not turn up, both the writ petitions were dismissed and the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Gosha Mahal, Hyderabad, the third respondent herein, was directed to seal the premises. The petitioner contends that he has initiated the proceedings for eviction of his tenant, and the latter, is absconding for the last several months. He is said to have obtained an order of eviction in R.C.No.63 of 2007 and when he sought to recover possession, the seal put by the third respondent is coming in the way. He seeks appropriate directions, in this regard. Heard Sri P.Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and learned Government Pleader for Home, appearing for the third respondent. This Court took up hearing of W.P.Nos.6103 of 2006 and 12110 of 2007 filed by Mr.M.A.Kareem said to be the tenant of the premises. Exception was taken to his action in filing two writ petitions, challenging the same order of assessment. Since he did not turn up, despite the efforts made by the respective counsel, the following order was passed: “Hence, these two writ petitions are dismissed, and it is directed that, the seals put to the premises, by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Goshamahal, Shall remain, till the petitioner deposits the entire amount, levied under the final order of assessment, and a further sum of Rs.25,000/- to the respondents, which shall also be subject to the rights, if any, of the owner of the premises.” The petitioner claims to be the owner of the property and he expressed his willingness to pay the amount covered by the order of assessment. If that be so, there cannot be any objection for respondents 1 and 2 to receive the amount and once the amount is recovered, the seal put to the premises, deserves to be removed. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing that: a) It shall be open to the petitioner to pay the amount covered by the order of assessment, dated 23.07.2004, in respect of the premises, referred to above. The petitioner shall not be under obligation to pay the further sum of Rs.25,000/-, since he is said to be the owner; b) On production of the receipt issued by the second respondent, in proof of payment of the arrears, the third respondent shall remove the seal put to the premises; and c) The restoration of power supply would depend upon the clearance of arrears for the service connection. Thee shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ Dt.26.11.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Note:Furnish C.C. by tomorrow. (B/o) GJ