The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.13078 of 2010 Dated 11th June, 2010 Between: Mehdi Agah Karbalai …Petitioner And Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Company Ltd., and 5 others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. S.Sridhar Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5: Mr.O.Manoher Relddy, SC for AP Transco. Counsel for respondent No.6: ----- The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 5, in registering false cases against the petitioner on the complaint of respondent No.6, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to respondent Nos.1 to 5 to remove the electricity meters from the petitioner’s two premises bearing No.3-6-6, Busireddy Guda, West Marredpally, Secunderabad, bearing SC.No.CZ000360 and No.10-2-2 & 3, F2&3, Entrenchment Road, West Marredpally, Secunderabad, bearing SC.No.CZ007583 and install the same on the pole. I have heard Sri S.Sridhar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri O.Manoher Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for AP Transco representing respondent Nos.1 to 5. The petitioner is running two bakery outlets. On three previous occasions, the officials of respondent No.1 inspected the petitioner’s premises and initiated assessment proceedings on the allegation that he is indulging in illegal abstraction of power by tampering with the meters. On each of these occasions, the petitioner approached this Court by way of Writ Petitions and was able to get appropriate interim orders. The immediate cause for the petitioner to file the present Writ Petition is inspection of his premises again on 08-06-2010 by respondent No.2 and his team and removal of the existing meter and replacement of the same with some other meters. The petitioner stated that he was informed by the inspecting team that he has indulged in tampering of seals of the meters. Apprehending that the respondents may resort to initiation of yet another assessment proceedings, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. In my opinion, the Writ Petition is anticipatory in nature. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is bound by the statutory terms and conditions framed by respondent No.1 and approved by the A.P.Electricity Regulatory Commission under the provisions of the A.P.Electricity Reforms Act, 1998, read with the Electricity Act, 2003. Under these Regulations, the officials of respondent No.1 are entitled to inspect the premises of any of its consumers and take appropriate action if they detect pilferage or malpractice by the consumers. The allegation of illegal abstraction of power requires to be adjudicated by the authorities concerned under the said Regulations with reference to the incriminating material available in each case. Except making allegation against respondent No.6 that at his instance, these inspections are being made and the petitioner is being harassed, no material is submitted by the petitioner to substantiate the same. At any rate, even assuming that respondent No.6 has an axe to grind against the petitioner, if the petitioner has indulged in pilferage, initiation of proceedings on the complaint of respondent No.6 by the officials of respondent No.1 cannot be termed as illegal or malafide. It is for the petitioner to establish his case before the hierarchical authorities with respect to each of the assessment proceedings. It is, therefore, not possible for this Court to restrain respondent Nos.1 to 5 from exercising their statutory powers and discharging their official functions. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.16481 of 2010, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 11th June, 2010 lur