IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.1160 OF 2010 Between: Ammi Reddy Chinna Anki Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, Proddatur, Kadapa District, Represented by its Divisional Engineer and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.1160 OF 2010 ORDER: The matter is coming up for admission. 2. Heard the learned counsel on record. Counter affidavit had been filed. 3. The writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.3 in not restoring the power supply to Agriculture Service Connection No.37, which was sanctioned in the year 1983 on the name of petitioner’s father, namely, A.Pedda Konda Reddy, in spite of several requests; representation dated 19.09.2009, to the respondents herein and order of this Court dated 29.10.2009 passed in W.P.No.22697 of 2009, and passing the impugned order by respondent No.3, without application of mind, vide Lr.No.AE/O/Duvvur/F/D.No.637/09, dated 05.12.2009, which was served to the petitioner on 28.12.2009, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and also in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to restore the power supply forthwith to Agriculture Service Connection No.37, situated in Madirepalli Village, Duvvur Mandal, Kadapa District, within the jurisdiction of respondent No.3 sub- station and pass such other suitable orders. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that initially in the year 1983 Service Connection No.37 was sanctioned in the name of petitioner’s father and the bills are being paid regularly. On 19.09.2009, the petitioner made a complaint to the respondents to restore the power supply, since for certain political reasons the electric polls and wires of Service Connection No.37 had been removed. It is also stated that the petitioner filed W.P.No.22697 of 2009 seeking direction to restore the power supply forthwith to Service Connection No.37 and this Court, on 29.10.2009, disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents as hereunder: “As it is the grievance of the Petitioner that some third parties are interfering with his possession over the land and are making efforts to pull down the electric poles and wires in that land and in that connection he approached the respondent authorities and made a complaint on 19.09.2009, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to pass appropriate orders on the said application within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 5. No doubt, it is stated that the petitioner is a poor agriculturist and his livelihood is being affected because of the action of respondents. Several other further facts had also been narrated. 6. In the counter affidavit filed, certain facts had been admitted and several facts had been specifically denied. It is stated that on an application filed by the father of the petitioner for power supply to the lands in Survey No.318/4 of Maddirepalli Village, Duvvur Mandal, Kadapa District for pumping of water from the well, the service connection was given. 7. Specific stand had been taken that the respondents have no objection to restore the service connection to its original position. But, however, it is stated that since the shifting had been done un-authorizedly, the service connection cannot be restored as it stood on the date of removal by the private parties. Be that as it may, this Court is not inclined to express any opinion. But, however, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to restore the power supply to the petitioner’s Service Connection No.37 in Survey No.318/4 of Madirepalli Village, Duvvur Mandal, Kadapa District, to its original position. However, further liberty is given to the petitioner to make appropriate representation to respondent No.3 for shifting in accordance with law, within a period of one week and let respondent No.3 take appropriate decision in this regard, within a period of two weeks thereafter. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J February 10, 2010 Note: Furnish C.C. of the order in two days. B/O.MD