IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No.17745 of 2008 Between: K. Goverdhan, S/o. Late K. Shankaraiah, M/s. AP Patel & Co. H.No. 1-7-503/1, Bakaram Road, Hyderabad, A.P. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (AP) 2 The Divisional Engineer, A.P. Central Power Distribution Corporation Limited, Hyderabad (AP). 3 Sri Deepak Patel S/o. Maganlal Patel, R/o. H.No. 1-7-145/8, Srinivas Nagar Colony, Bakaram, Hyderabad, AP. 4 Sri Sudhir Patel S/o Maganlal Patel, R/o. H.No. 1-7-145/8, Srinivas Nagar Colony, Bakaram, Hyderabad, AP. 5 Sri Maganlal Patel, Age & Parentage not known to petitioner, R/o. 1-7-145/8, Srinivas Nagar Colony, Bakaram, 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 may be pleased to issue a direction, orders or a Writ, more appropriately one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus directing/declaring the action of the respondents herein "Declare the action of the Respondent No. 2 and its oﬃcers of disconnecting power supply to Saw Mills Operations at Petitioner's facility / Industrial site e.g. Saw Mill and Timber Depot by name AP & CO situated at H.No.1-7-150, Bakaram, Hyderabad (AP) without there being any default on the part of the petitioner herein as being arbitrary, driven by malice and bias, not covered by any authority of law and therefore violative of petitioner's Fundamental Right to carry on a trade/business of his choice within the legal framework prescribed by the State and therefore ULTRA VIRES ARTICLES 14, 19 and 21 of the constitution of India" . Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.CAPT.K.M.SAXENA Counsel for the 2nd respondent: MR. O. MANOHAR REDDY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No.17745 OF 2008 ORDER: Heard Sri Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the 2nd respondent in disconnecting power supply to the sawmill in H.No.1-7-150, Bakaram Road, Hyderabad, which is alleged to be an arbitrary conduct of the 2nd respondent. 3. There are civil disputes between the petitioner and respondents 3 to 5 with regard to the lease of the property in premises bearing H.No.1-7-150, Bakaram Road, Hyderabad, in which sawmills are in existence. The petitioner was a lessee of the property during 12.10.2001 to 12.10.2006 under an initial lease, which is claimed to have been renewed further. Subsequent to 12.10.2006, admittedly and demonstrably too, there is no extant formal lease in favour of the petitioner executed by respondents 3 to 5. Respondents 3 to 5 are the legal representatives of one Patel Kesavlal, who is the grandfather of respondents 3 and 4, and through whose testamentary disposition, the respondents 3 to 5 inherited the property. However, it would appear that the respondents 3 to 5 addressed a letter to the Forest Department, in particular, the Divisional Forest Oﬃcer, Hyderabad Division, to the eﬀect that the 5th respondent has received an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards additional security deposit from the petitioner and the 5th respondent agrees for renewal of the lease deed for another three years i.e. from 01.01.2007 to 31.12.2009. However, it is the admitted case of the petitioner that there was no formal lease deed executed between him and respondents 3 to 5. 4. Apprehending eviction by the respondents 3 to 5, the petitioner appears to have ﬁled O.S.No.979 of 2008 on the ﬁle of the V Senior Civil Judge’s Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and therein obtained an Ad-Interim Injunction against the 4th respondent herein and his relatives restraining them from interfering with the petitioner’s possession of the property afore-described. Thereafter, it would appear, the respondents 3 to 5 addressed the 2nd respondent seeking disconnection of the power supply to the premises in question. Since the power supply was in the name of the grandfather of respondents 3 and 4 and the respondents 3 to 5 are the legal representatives indisputably, the 2nd respondent entertained the application of the respondents 3 to 5 and disconnected the power supply on 05.08.2008. As a consequence of this conduct of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner is in physical possession of the premises by virtue of the injunction order granted by the Civil Court, but without power supply. He, therefore, assails the action of the 2nd respondent in disconnecting the power supply. 5. From the above narrative, it is clear that there is no privity of contractual relationship between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent with regard to the energy supply to the premises in H.No.1-7-150, Bakaram Road, Hyderabad. It is also the factual position that the respondents 3 to 5 are entitled to seek disconnection of the power supply and to address letters for that purpose, to the 2nd respondent. As a corollary of this entitlement of respondents 3 to 5, the 2nd respondent is under a legal obligation to disconnect the power supply on a requisition from respondents 3 to 5. Since the respondents 3 to 5 have addressed and requisitioned the disconnection of power supply, the 2nd respondent was under a non-derogable obligation to disconnect the power supply. The 2nd respondent, in compliance with such legal obligation, disconnected the power supply on 05.08.2008. This conduct of the 2nd respondent is legally impeccable and warrants no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. On the aforesaid analysis, there are no merits in the writ petition and the writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall however be no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM 20th August, 2008 IBL