IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7600 of 2008 Between: M/s. Himalaya Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd., rep by its Administrative Manager, Mrs. K. Radha Rani W/o K. Venkateswarlu R/o Plot No. 33, Phase-I, I.D.A. Jeedimetla, R.R. District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Central Power Distribution Company of A.P., Ltd., Hyderabad, rep by its Chairman/Managing Director. 2 The Superintendent of Engineer, A.P. Central Power Distribution Co. Ltd., Operations Mint Compound, R.R. Circle, Hyderabad. 3 The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Elec. Operations, A.P. CPDCL, Jeedimetla, R.R. district 4 The Addl. Assistant Engineer, Operations, A.P. Central Power Distribution Co. Ltd., IDA, Jeedimetla, R.R. District. 5 Asst. Accounts Officer, AP Central Power Distribution Co. Ltd., Electrictiy Revenue Officer, Jeedimetla, R.R. District .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.N.RAJESHWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: MR.O.MANOHER REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside notice, dated 24.03.2008 issued by respondent No.5 whereby he demanded a sum of Rs.9,24,817/- towards C.C. charges. Assailing the action of the respondents in clubbing two L.T. connections, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.8463 of 2001. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 22.01.2008 on the ground that the same has become infructuous. As a consequence of dismissal of the said writ petition, the impugned notice was issued. A reading of the said notice shows that in view of the dismissal of Writ Petition No.8463 of 2001, the petitioner is liable to pay the above- mentioned sum. At the hearing, Sri N.Rajeshwar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that subsequent to the issuance of the impugned order, W.P.No.8463 of 2001 was restored on 04.04.2008. The learned counsel, however, submitted that the respondents are persisting with the demand raised in the impugned notice. In my considered view, this writ petition is wholly misconceived. The petitioner questioned the action of clubbing of two L.T. connections in W.P.No.8463 of 2001. It’s liability to pay the amount demanded on account of such clubbing depends upon the outcome of W.P.No.8463 of 2001. If the petitioner has any legitimate grievance with regard to the demand and attempt to recover any sum towards clubbing of the two L.T. connections, it is entitled to seek redressal of the same in the above mentioned pending writ petition and it cannot maintain a substantive writ petition as the present one in this regard. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.10004 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 9th APRIL, 2008 kvni