THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10202 of 2003 Dated 17th June, 2010 Between: Faiz Ahmed Raj. …Petitioner And Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, Represented by its Chairman, and another. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Gopal G.Naik Counsel for respondents: Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned standing counsel for APTRANSCO The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the letter dated 12.04.2003 issued by respondent No.2 and consequently direct the respondents to restore power supply to the service connection pertaining to meter No.2838409 at Malkapur Village, Choutuppal Mandal, Nalgonda District. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned standing counsel representing the respondents. The petitioner claimed to have purchased agricultural land admeasuring Acs.4.00 comprised in survey No.187 of Malkapur Village, Choutuppal Mandal, Nalgonda District, under two registered sale deeds dated 16.05.2002. On the petitioner’s application for supply of electricity, supply was released by installing a meter. The petitioner pleaded that on 12.04.2003, respondent No.2 came to the petitioner’s agricultural land and removed the C.C. meter and disconnected the power supply. On the petitioner approaching respondent No.2, he has issued the impugned letter. At the hearing, Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned standing counsel, submitted that as third parties raised a dispute in respect of the property in possession of the petitioner, respondent No.2 has issued the impugned letter. In my opinion, the petitioner being a registered consumer, he is entitled for continuance of the service connection unless he violated any of the terms and conditions framed by the licensee. The impugned letter does not contain any allegations to that effect. Even if third parties raised certain objections regarding the petitioner’s possession over the land in dispute, that cannot be a ground to disconnect the power supply unless an order to that effect was passed by a competent Court of law. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is allowed. Unless the third parties have obtained any declaration as to their right over the land in question and a consequential direction to the respondents to remove the electricity connection or terminate the agreement entered with the petitioner, the electrical supply to the petitioner’s service connection shall be restored. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 17th June, 2010 GHN 18903 of 2007 At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner a dwacra group was appointed as a temporary fair price shop dealer pending filling up of permanent vacancy. By the impugned notification, respondent No.2 sought to fill up the said vacancy. Respondent No.1 in reserving the vacancy to the candidates belonging to schedule tribe. In my opinion, the petitioner has no vested right to insist that. The vacancy should be earmarked to a general category to enable the petitioner to claim preference. The petitioner fails to point out that in reserving the vacancy for candidates belonging to schedule tribes, the respondents have violated any of the statutory provisions or administrative guidelines. Providing reservation to the underprivileged candidates such as scheduled castes and scheduled tribes is an avowed object of the welfare state. Therefore, no illegality or arbitrariness is