IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.15654 of 2005 Between: Namburi Sarojini W/o late Murali Mohan R/o Edepalli Machilipatnam, Bandar DMC ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Additional Assistant Engineer, Distribution-2, APSPDC Ltd., Edepalli, Mcachilipatnam, Krishna District. 2 Divisional Assistant Engineer, Distribution-2, APSPDC LTd., Edepalli, Machilipatnam, Krishna District 3 Namburi Dr.Mukherjee Victor, S/o late Namburi Victor, R/o. Jitendra Enclave, Flat No.203, Meerjalguda, Malkajgiri, Secunderabad. (R3 is impleaded as per court order dt. 12-2-2007 in WPMP 27747 of 2006). .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. P.R.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents : None. The Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to direct respondent No.1 to provide fresh service connection to the premises bearing D.No.17/37, Edepalli village, Machilipatnam, by collecting usual charges. Heard Sri P.R.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner. No one represented the respondents. On 21-9-2007 this Court, in WPMP No.24889 of 2006, passed the following order: “Though notice was sent to the third respondent, it is stated that it was not claimed. Further, an attempt was made for service of notice on the counsel who appeared on behalf of the third respondent in Writ Appeal No.2261 of 2005, but, he did not receive the same on the ground that there are no instructions. As much as it is stated that the suit filed by the petitioner for injunction with regard to the subject land was decreed in his favour and the suit filed by the third respondent for recovery of possession is pending consideration, I permit the petitioner to submit fresh proposals for providing service connection to his premises bearing Door No.17/317, situate at Edepalli, Machilipatnam. If such proposals are submitted, the respondents 1 and 2 shall consider the same for providing service connection, by collecting necessary charges as per the terms and conditions of supply”. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the above-reproduced order passed by this Court, the petitioner’s grievance is adequately redressed. In view of this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Writ Petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail her remedy in the event Service Connection is not provided to her. -------------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 03-3-2008 MNR