IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16409 of 2010 Between: G.N. Sharama ... PETITIONER a n d The Divisional Engineer (Operation), APEPDCL, Divisional Office, Rajahmundry, E.G. District and others … RESPONDENTS ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by G.N. Sharma with a prayer to issue an order, writ or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to erect an electrical transformer on the north-east corner of his building bearing H.No.46-7-34, Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry without considering his objections dated 10-05-2010 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. 2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the house bearing D.No.46-7-34 situated on the main road, opposite to Municipal Commissioner Building, Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry. According to him, the respondents erected one electrical transformer on the south-west corner of his building despite objections raised by him and thereby he closed the South-West corner gate of his building. When the respondents’ authorities are taking steps to erect electric transformer on the north-east corner of his building, a representation has been submitted by him raising objections. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents without considering his objections are proceeding to erect transformer on the north- east corner of his building. It appears that the petitioner also initiated certain proceedings before the District Legal Services Authority, Rajahmundry. The respondents 1 and 2 having received notices failed to appear before the District Legal Services Authority, Rajahmundry. Apprehending that the respondents may erect a transformer on the north-east corner of his premises without considering his objections, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and sought for relief stated supra. 3. When the writ petition came up for admission, Smt.Jyothi Eswar Gogineni, learned Standing Counsel for A.P.E.P.D.C.L., takes notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri A. Visnu Vardhan Reddy, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of respondent No.3. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 5. Limited grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are contemplating to erect an electrical transformer on the north- east corner of his house without considering his objections, dated 10-05-2010. 6. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the objections, dated 10-05- 2010 submitted by the petitioner and take appropriate decision as to location of electrical transformer, if not, erected as on this day. ___________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J July 12, 2010. Note: Furnish C.C. in three (3) days. B/o.PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16409 of 2010 July 12, 2010 Note: Furnish C.C. in three (3) days. B/o.PN