IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13236 of 2010 Between: Madugula Rama Rao ..... Petitioner AND The District Panchayat Officer, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri G. Venkateshwarlu Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Panchayat Raj Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri G. Elisha Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri O. Manohar Reddy The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13236 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in not issuing No Objection Certificate (for short, ‘NOC’) in favour of the petitioner to enable him to obtain service connection from respondent No.3, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to respondent No.2 to issue NOC. I have heard Sri G. Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G. Elisha, learned Standing counsel for respondent No.2. The petitioner claims to have purchased certain property under registered document No.2492, dated 14.08.1974 from one Gopinath Gajapathi Narayan Deo, that he made an application to respondent No.2 for construction of eight shops over the said land and that respondent No.2 vide resolution No.8 dated 22.06.2005 sanctioned the plan. The petitioner further averred that in pursuance of the said sanctioned plan he has constructed a shopping complex with eight shops and completed the same in January, 2006 and that when he approached respondent No.3 for sanction and release of electricity supply, the latter insisted on production of NOC from respondent No.2. The petitioner pleaded that when he made an application to respondent No.2 for granting NOC on 11.01.2010, having received the application, the latter refused to give acknowledgment and that therefore he has sent a copy of the application under certificate of posting. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he has approached respondent No.2 on several occasions, he has not issued NOC. The Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.2 filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is inter alia stated that respondent No.2 never granted building permission in favour of the petitioner for construction of eight shops, that building permission was given in favour of one person by name Suresh Kumar in the year 2005 and that the said person has not made any construction in pursuance of the said permission, which got lapsed by efflux of time. It is further stated that without obtaining any sanction in his name, the petitioner has constructed eight shops illegally and that when respondent No.2 came to know that the entire land in Sy.No.342 is an Endowment land, eviction orders were passed on 03.04.2010 by the District Collector. It is further alleged that the petitioner has transferred the property in favour of Suresh Kumar, who obtained the building permission and that the plan filed by the petitioner clearly shows that permission was given in the name of Suresh Kumar, but not in the petitioner’s name. That the petitioner filed Writ Petition Nos.7602 and 10052 of 2010, wherein he has questioned the eviction orders and that the title to the property is in dispute. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Suresh Kumar, in whose favour the building permission has been granted, is no other than the son of the petitioner and that the petitioner has filed WPMP.No.29214 of 2010 for adding him as petitioner No.2 in the Writ Petition. He further stated that the eviction orders passed by the District Collector are the subject matter of Writ Petition Nos.7602 and 10052 of 2010, wherein this Court granted stay of operation of the said orders. The facts, referred to above, would disclose that there is a serious dispute to the title of the property, though respondent No.2 evidently granted building permission in favour of Suresh Kumar. The scope of this Writ Petition is, however, limited to the aspect relating to non-granting of NOC by respondent No.2. Neither the petitioner pleaded nor the learned counsel appearing for him has contended, at the hearing, that respondent No.2 has legal obligation under the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder to issue NOC to any person to enable him to obtain service connection. In the absence of any such statutory obligation, it is not possible for this Court to issue a Mandamus to respondent No.2. If respondent No.3 has unjustly withheld the electricity connection, the petitioner is entitled to avail appropriate remedy against such an action. I am therefore of the opinion that the prayer sought for in this Writ Petition to the extent of non-issuance of NOC by respondent No.2 cannot be granted. As noted above, this order, however, does not preclude the petitioner from seeking appropriate relief against respondent No.3 for release of service connection in accordance with the terms and conditions of supply. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.Nos.16692 and 29214 of 2010 are also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 25.01.2011 ES