IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.26508 OF 2009 Between: Smt. P.Swaroopa Rani, W/o. P. Balagangadhara Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Energy, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.26508 OF 2009 ORDER: This Court ordered notice before admission on 04.12.2009 and issued rule nisi on 18.01.2010. 2. Heard Sri T. Balaji, learned counsel representing the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Energy, representing respondent No.1; Sri O. Manohar Reddy, representing respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Sri V.R.Reddy Kovuri, representing respondent No.4. 3. The writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus declaring the impugned order of respondent No.3 dated 30.10.2009 vide Lr.No.AE/O/EAST/KDP/F.No./D.No.1498/09, rejecting the petitioner’s request for disconnecting the electricity power supply to the Service Connection bearing No.70160 in respect of “Sri Venkateswara Picture Palace” now known as ‘M/s. Sandhya 70MM” situated in Survey No.72/1 of Nagarajupally, Railway Station Road, Kadapa Town, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct respondent Nos.2 and 3 to forthwith disconnect electricity power supply to the above said Service Connection and pass such other suitable orders. 4. Several facts had been narrated in detail in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 5. The dispute is in relation to the electricity service connection and the request for disconnection thereof, in relation to Sri Venkateswara Picture Palace now known as Sandhya 70MM. Several of the facts appeared to be not in serious controversy. 6. The Judgment and decree made in O.S.No.44 of 2002 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Kadapa and the Judgment and decree of the Division Bench of this Court in A.S.No.271 of 2006 and the order made by Apex Court in S.L.P.Nos.26051 and 26052 of 2008 had been referred to in detail and submissions had been made. The order made in W.P.No.14227 of 2009 had also been referred to. The representations and the impugned order had also been specifically pointed out. 7. In the counter affidavit filed several facts had been admitted and several facts had been specifically denied. The payment of receipts, counter affidavits in W.P.No.25011 of 2008 and in I.A.No.142 of 2009, a copy of the Insurance Policy and the order made in W.P.MP.No.34579 of 2003 in W.P.No.19770 of 2003 had also been placed before this Court. 8. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner though successful in the civil litigation up to the Apex Court, despite the representation made by the petitioner for disconnection of the electricity power supply to the subject matter, the same is not being disconnected. 9. On the contrary, the stand of respondent No.4 is that in whatever capacity it may be, since respondent No.4 obtained electricity service connection and since he is not willing to have the service connection disconnected, such direction cannot be given. 10. Sri O. Manohar Reddy, no doubt made certain submissions in this regard and ultimately would submit that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are bound by the directions, which ultimately may be given by this Court. It is pertinent to note that respondent No.4 unsuccessfully fought the litigation up to the Apex Court. However, it is stated that an application for restitution in I.A.No.142 of 2009 in O.S.No.44 of 2002 filed by the petitioner is pending disposal on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Kadapa. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that certain other applications praying for certain reliefs had also been filed. 11. Be that as it may, the principal relief to which the petitioner herein as on today would be entitled to, is the right of restitution, to be decided in I.A.No.142 of 2009 in O.S.No.44 of 2002 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Kadapa. It is needless to say that the petitioner is at liberty to move appropriate application even in this regard, since the relief prayed for is only for discontinuance of the electricity power supply to the subject matter. 12. In the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that apart from giving the aforesaid liberty, let the learned I Additional District Judge, Kadapa, dispose of I.A.No.142 of 2009 in O.S.No.44 of 2002 along with other application which may be moved praying for incidental or ancillary reliefs to the principal relief of restitution, at the earliest point of time preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J January 25, 2010 Note: Furnish C.C. of the order within four days. B/O.MD