IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14227 of 2009 Between: Smt.P.Swaroopa Rani W/o P.Balagangadhara Reddy 19-4-31,3/H-12 S.T.V Nagar Tirupathi,Chittoor District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of A.P rep.by its Principal Secretary Energy Secretariat Building, Hyderabad 2 APSPDC Ltd rep.by its Superintendent Engineer Vidyutsoudha,Kadapa Kadapa District 3 Assistant Engineer(Establishment) Operation APSPDC Ltd Vidyuthsoud Railway Station Road,Kadapa,Kadapa District 4 M.Harinarayana alias Hari Babu S/o Chandraiah Sandhya 70 MM Theatre Door No.17-106/71 RTC X Roads Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.T.BALAJI Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR ENERGY Counsel for Respondent No.4: ----- The Court made the following : ORDER: In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction of respondent No.3, in responding to her representation, dated 03-03-2009, made for disconnection of power supply standing in the name of respondent No.4. Heard Sri T.Balaji, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri S.V.Ramana, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent Nos.1 to 3. In the view I am proposing to take, it is not necessary to issue notice to respondent No.4. The petitioner entered into an agreement of sale with respondent No.4 on 28-03-2001 in connection with a Cinema theater viz., “Sri Venkateswara Picture Palace”. Thereafter, disputes arose between them which resulted in respondent No.4 filing a suit for specific performance of the above-said agreement of sale vide O.S.No.44 of 2002 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Kadapa. Respondent No.4, allegedly, took possession of the above- mentioned theater, which is the subject matter of the dispute, in pursuance of ad-interim injunction Order, dated 10-09-2004, passed in I.A.Nos.3947 and 3948 of 2002 in O.S.No.44 of 2002. It is the case of the petitioner that the said suit was dismissed by the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Kadapa, vide Judgment, dated 29-04-2006, wherein a finding was stated to have been rendered that respondent No.4 indulged in forgery of a receipt. The appeal bearing AS.No.271 of 2006, stated to have been filed by respondent No.4 in this Court, was dismissed on 23-09-2008. It is stated that Special Leave Petition.Nos.26051 and 26052 of 2008, filed against the above-mentioned judgment and decree, were also dismissed on 10-11-2008 by the Supreme Court. The petitioner averred that she made representation, dated 03-03-2009, to respondent No.3 enumerating the abovementioned facts and requesting to disconnect the power supply released in favour of respondent No.4, on the basis of the forged documents, and to release fresh connection in the name of Sri Venkateswara Picture Palace. The grievance of the petitioner is that no action has been taken by respondent No.3, so far, on the said representation. In support of her averments, the petitioner filed the judgments of the trial Court and this Court, apart from the order of the Supreme Court dismissing the Special Leave Petitions. These judgments prima facie support the contention of the petitioner that respondent No.4 lost the litigation against the petitioner. However, as respondent No.3 is required to consider the petitioner’s representation in accordance with law, I refrain from giving conclusive findings on the various pleas raised by the petitioner in this Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.3 to consider representation, dated 03-03-2009, filed by the petitioner for the purposes referred to above, strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of supply, pass appropriate order thereon and communicate the same to the petitioner and respondent No.4, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.18646 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 20th July, 2009 Note: Furnish CC in one week. B/o lur