THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.3713 of 2007 Dated:30.08.2007 Between: K. Venkat Krishna Reddy and others. ..Petitioners. and The Central Power Distribution Company, A.P. Ltd., rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director, Singareni Bhavan, red Hills, Hyderabad and others. ..Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.3713 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioners are farmers of Yellore Village, Kollapur Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. They own bore wells. All of them were provided with agricultural power supply to their agricultural pump sets. However, the wells/bore wells of the petitioners were submerged in a reservoir under a Major Irrigation Scheme. This resulted in shifting the electricity lines to different places. A scheme was prepared and approved by the Director/Operation of Central Power Distribution Company, the 1st respondent herein, vide memo, dated 19.10.2005. However, this scheme was cancelled through proceedings of the 1st respondent, dated 20.07.2006. The petitioners are now challenging the same. They contend that earlier scheme was cancelled at the behest of local politicians, and the same would result in hardship and low voltage for their pump sets. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that the scheme approved vide memo, dated 19.10.2005, serves the need of only four farmers and with a view to ensure that maximum number of farmers would get benefit, the impugned memo was issued paving the way for preparing a new scheme. Heard Sri D.V.Nagarjuna Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is no doubt true that a scheme was approved by the 1st respondent on 19.10.2005 with an estimate of Rs.7,03,210/-. Substantial contribution is said to have been made by the Irrigation Department as a compensatory measure. Even today, the scheme could be implemented. It was cancelled through the impugned proceedings. The petitioners express the apprehension that any scheme other than the one approved through the proceedings, dated 19.10.2005, would result in low voltage to their pump sets and additional expenditure for them. From a perusal of the counter-affidavit, and on hearing the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, this Court finds that the apprehension of the petitioner is misplaced. It is categorically stated that the only reason that prompted the respondents to change the scheme is to ensure that more number of farmers get the benefit of power supply. As long as the petitioners are provided with power supply with stabilized voltage, and they are not subjected to any additional financial burden, it should not be a matter of concern for them, in case than number of farmers are entitled by power supply under the new scheme. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that the respondents shall ensure that the petitioners do not face any problem of low voltage for their pump sets under the newly formulated scheme, and they are not subjected to any additional financial burden in the matter of extension of power supply. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dated:30.08.2007 sj