IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23511 of 2005 Between : Satyam Homes Pvt. Ltd., (presently on iots Change of Name Known as "Maytas Housing Pvt. Ltd), a Company, incorporated under the companies Act, having its Regd.No.107, Shivam, Ram Raj Nagar, Jeedimetla, Rep. by its Authorised Singnatory M. Suryanarayana. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Assistant Accounts Officer, E.R.O Central Power Distribution Company of A.P Ltd., (APTRANSO), Jeedimetla R.R.District. 2 Superintending Engineer Central Power Distribution Co. of A.P Ltd., (APTRANSCO), Tirumulgiri Secunderabad. .....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 a writ, order, or direction more particularly , one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the Bills of Demand, dt.1- 10-2005 amounting to Rs.1,85,000/- against service connection No.315- 0001 74 00 216; and 14.10.2005 amounting to Rs.49,000/- against service connection charges, as arbitrary, illegal, and violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the impugned Bills of Demand for Rs.1,85,000/- and Rs.49,000/- with a direction to the Respondents to refrain from collection any back billing amounts, pursuant to the impugned bills of demand, dt.1-10-2005 and 01-10-2005 in respect pursuant to the said impugned bills of demand, dt.01-10-2005 and 01-10-2005 in respect of service connection.No.315- 0001, 74 00 216 and 315-0001 74 00 217, and be pleased to pass such other order or order's as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.B.VENKAT RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondents : O.MANOHAR REDDY(SC FOR APTRANSCO) The Court made the following : ORDER : This writ petition is filed, questioning the Bills of Demand, dated 01.10.2005, on account of arrears towards the electricity consumption charges. 2. At first instance, this Court passed interim orders, directing the respondents to restore power connection to the petitioner, subject to payment of 50% of arrears. It is submitted that in compliance of the said interim orders, 50% of the demand was paid, and further, during the pendency of the writ petition, balance amount is also paid as insisted by the respondents to consider the petitioner’s request for providing another service connection. 3. In view of the factual disputes, which arise for consideration having regard to the averments in the counter affidavit, the learned counsel for petitioner seeks permission for withdrawal of the writ petition, with liberty to approach the Civil Court for appropriate relief. 4. Accepting the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn and it is open to the petitioner to pursue any other remedy available under Law. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 21st July 2009 ajr