HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.26680 of 2011 Date : 20-12-2011 Between: Ziaulla s/o. Fazlu Rehman and another .. Petitioner And The Divisional Engineer, A.P. Transco Ltd., Hindupur, Ananthapur District and another .. Respondents Counsel for petitioners : Sri N. Aswarthanarayana Counsel for respondents : Sri S.V. Ramana for Sri O. Manohar Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioners are tentants of shop bearing No.17-3- 150, A1 & A-2, Shafiulla Shopping Complex, Penukonda road, Hindupur, Anantapur District. Suit and counter-suit are filed by the petitioners and respondent No.2. While the petitioners sought for permanent injunction against respondent No.2 in O.S.No.268/2010 in the Court of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Hindupur, respondent No.2 filed O.S.No.112/2010 in the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur for eviction of the petitioners. The injunction application filed by the petitioners was dismissed and so was the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by them against the said order. The petitioners stated that C.R.P.Nos.3285 and 3479/2011 filed against the said orders are pending before this Court. The grievance of the petitioners is that at the instance of respondent No.2, respondent No.1 has disconnected the power supply to the shops in their occupation. When a legal notice was issued on behalf of the petitioners, respondent No.2 has caused a reply notice issued on 19-4-2011 wherein while stating that O.S.No.112/2010 is filed for eviction of the petitioners, it is stated in unequivocal terms that respondent No.2 has no need or necessity to disconnect the power supply to the petitioners’ premises. At the hearing, Sri S.V. Ramana, learned counsel representing Sri O. Manohar Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for A.P. Southern Distribution Company Limited, stated that the supply was disconnected to the petitioners’ shops at the instance of respondent No.2. Even though notice was received by respondent No.2, he has not entered appearance. From the contents of the reply legal notice got issued by him, it is evident that respondent No.2 is not interested in disconnecting the power supply to the petitioners’ premises, pending the eviction suit. When respondent No.2 himself has no objection, there is no reason for respondent No.1 and his subordinates to disconnect the electricity supply to the shops in occupation of the petitioners. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is allowed with the direction to respondent No.1 [wrongly described as Divisional Engineer of A.P. Transco Limited instead of showing as Divisional Engineer of A.P. Southern Distribution Company Limited] to restore power supply to the shops in occupation of the petitioners subject to their paying the arrears, if any payable and also their continuing to pay the electricity charges in future till the pending civil suits are disposed of. As a sequel, WPMP No.32928/2011 is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 20-12-2011 AM