THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11830 of 2010 Date: 31.5.2010 Between: Narukulla Mallikharjuna Rao and others. ..... PETITIONERS AND The District Collector, Khammam and others. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri V. Venugopala Rao Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: Govt. Pleader for Revenue Counsel for the Respondent No. 4 : Sri S.V. Ramana for Mr. O. Manohar Reddy The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11830 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in disconnecting the service connections in respect of the petitioners’ service connections bearing Nos. 2644, 292, 9158, 940 and 97 respectively, on 3.5.2010 as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri V. Venugopala Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.V.Ramana, learned counsel representing the Standing Counsel for Northern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited. The petitioners are agriculturists. On the ground that the bore wells dug by them fall within the F.T.L. of Vesyakanthala Cheruvu, Respondent No.3 passed an order dated 11.2.2010 directing the petitioners to remove their bore wells. Simultaneously, Respondent No.3 called upon Respondent No.4 to disconnect the power supply. Following the said request, power supply was stated to have been disconnected to the petitioners’ service connections on 3.5.2010. The petitioners have pleaded that against order dated 11.2.2010 passed by Respondent No.3, the petitioners have filed an appeal before Respondent No.2 on 20.2.2010 and that their interim application for stay of the order of Respondent No.3 has been posted to 5.6.2010. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that while the petitioners’ appeal is pending before Respondent No.2, the application for stay is coming up for consideration on 5.6.2010 and there is no justification for Respondent No.4 to disconnect the power supply. Having heard the learned counsel representing the learned Standing Counsel, I am of the opinion that so long as the order of Respondent No.3 stands, Respondent No.4 cannot be compelled to continue the power supply to the petitioners. Respondent no.4, who is a functionary of the licensee under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Reforms Act, 1998 and the Electricity Act, 2003, is entitled to disconnect the power supply in respect of the bore wells, which are stated to have been dug illegally, within the F.T.L. of a public irrigation tank. However, if the petitioners are able to satisfy the appellate authority that the order passed by Respondent No.3 cannot be sustained in law, and if an order, either interim or final in nature is passed by Respondent No.2 to that effect in favour of the petitioners, Respondent No.4 will be liable to restore power supply to the petitioners’ service connections. As the stay application filed by the petitioner is stated to be coming up before Respondent No.2 on 5.6.2010, the petitioners shall be free to pursue the said application and in the event of an order being passed in favour of the petitioners by Respondent No.2, they are entitled to approach Respondent No.4 for restoration of power supply. In such an event, Respondent No.4 shall consider and take appropriate action in accordance with law. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J DATE: 31st May, 2010 Note: Furnish c.c. in three days B/o pnb