IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 2809 of 2009 Between: Mohd. Ismail Ghori S/o. late Mohd. Ibrahim Ghori R/o.H.No.12-2-39/A/3, Muradnagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chief General Manager, A.P.C.P.D.C.L. Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Begum Bazar, D-XXV, City-IV, A.P.C.P.D.C.L., (South), Hyderabad. 3 The Accounts Officer, A.O., GRC South Circle, A.P.C.P.D.C.L., Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly a Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to remove the meter from the premises bearing No. 5-3-661/A, Topkhana, Hyderabad bearing service connection No.K2-1778. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.RAVI SHANKAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: O.MANOHAR REDDY(SC FOR APTRANSCO) The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The petitioner asserts that in the year 1977, his late father obtained Service Connection bearing No. K2-1778 to his Plastic Processing Unit at the premises bearing No.5-3-66/1A, Topkhana, Hyderabad and regularly paid electricity consumption charges. While so, his father made an application in the year 1987 for supply of additional load of 18 H.P in addition to 21.5 H.P which was released on 21.12.1987 and he was served with a supplementary bill dated 5.12.1994 demanding payment of Rs.3,67,287/- from February, 1988 to September, 1994. Then, his father filed O.S.No.1617 of 1994 on the file of II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad challenging the notice dated 5.12.1994 and the learned Judge decreed the suit partly directing his father to pay Rs.27,552/- being the back billing for 6 months. Later, his father closed down the unit from 1.10.2006 and the power supply was disconnected, but the energy meter is not removed, and his father vacated the premises and removed the machinery and the same was informed to the Assistant Divisional Engineer by a letter dated 14.7.2008 and requested him to dismantle the service and take away the box and energy meter, and subsequently, he expired on 25.6.2007, but it is his grievance that the respondents, instead of removing the same, are sending bills regularly putting minimum charges to the disconnected power supply illegally. Hence, this writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to remove the meter from the premises in question. The respondents have filed counter affidavit stating that against the judgment dated 7.3.2003 in O.S.No.1617 of 1994, the petitioner filed C.C.C.A.No.257 of 2005 and though it was requested by the petitioner for dismantlement of the service after the death of the consumer, but as the appeal is pending adjudication the service is not dismantled. And the service was disconnected after receipt of application, and the minimum bills are also stopped from June, 2007 and inasmuch as final orders are awaited and arrears are pending on the service, the meter cannot be dismantled. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Company Limited appearing for the respondents. The factual aspects of the case are not in dispute. The respondents have taken the stand in the counter affidavit that the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment dated 7.3.2003 delivered in O.S.No.1617 of 1994 is pending final adjudication. Since the dispute raised by the petitioner in the writ petition is purely civil in nature, the remedy of the petitioner, if any, is to approach the lower appellate Court, where the appeal said to have been preferred by the petitioner is pending adjudication, and seek appropriate reliefs. Hence, I see no merits in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to make proper application in C.C.C.A.No.257 of 2005 which is pending final adjudication, before the learned II Senior Civil Judge, C.C.C., Hyderabad, and seek appropriate reliefs. No costs. _______________ N.V. RAMANA, J. 23rd March, 2009 bcj