IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.19420 OF 2009 BETWEEN: Pilla Nooka Raju S/o. Late Appala Swamy …. Petitioner AND The A.P. Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, rep. by its Managing Director and Others. …. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.19420 OF 2009 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in disconnecting the service connection No.000514 to his Tiffin Centre-cum-Pan Shop situated in T.S.No.248/10, Chandarlapalem Village, Visakhapatnam and trying to demolish the same without following due process of law, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to restore the power supply and not to demolish the Tiffin Centre cum Pan Shop of the petitioner. 2. According to the petitioner, he is the absolute owner of the site admeasuring 1080 Square Yards at Chandarlapadu Village, Visakhapatnam and in the said site by erecting a permanent shed he is running a Tiffin Centre cum Pan Shop in the name and style of Durga Pan Shop and also an STD booth, by erecting permanent shed therein. The A.P. Eastern Power distribution Company Limited (for short ‘APEPDCL’) - respondent No.1 has provided service connection bearing No.000514 to the Pan Shop and the petitioner has been paying the service charges regularly. His son, who is running the STD booth, adjacent to the said shop is also provided with electricity supply and he has been paying the service charges regularly. While so, the petitioner wanted to give the site for development to one M/s. Kiran Constructions and accordingly he submitted applications to respondent No.2 – The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation and it approved the plan. At that time, respondent No.2 advised him to donate major portion of the site to respondent No.2 in view of the proposed expansion of National Highway. Accordingly, the petitioner donated an extent of 672 square yards of land to respondent No.2 with a condition that if the road widening proposals are cancelled, the donated site shall be given back to him and he would become the absolute owner of the same and until the road widening program is take up, he would run his business in the said site and thereafter, he would voluntarily remove the Tiffin Centre, for which respondent No.2 also agreed. Accordingly, after obtaining permission for construction of the building for the remaining extent of 420 square yards of land, the builder has started construction. 3. Be that as it may, on 01-09-2009, the Assistant Engineer, A.P. Eastern Power Distribution Company Ltd., Maduravada, Visakhapatnam - respondent No.3 visited the petitioner’s business premises and disconnected the power supply stating that the occupation of the petitioner is unauthorized as informed by respondent No.2. The same is questioned by the petitioner in this writ petition. 4. Heard the learned standing counsel for respondent No.1 – APCPDCL and also the learned standing counsel for respondent No.2 – Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation. 5. It is clear from the record that on the basis of the information furnished by respondent No.2, respondent No.3 disconnected the power supply to the petitioner’s business premises. When once it is the contention of the petitioner that he is the owner of the site in question, a detailed enquiry has to be conducted into the said aspect as to whether the petitioner is the original owner or encroacher. So long as the said aspect is not decided, simply on the basis of the information furnished by respondent No.2 that the petitioner is an encroacher, respondent No.3 cannot disconnect the power supply to the business premises of the petitioner. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Writ Petition is allowed at the stage of admission with a direction to respondent No.3 to restore power supply to the petitioner forthwith. However, this order does not preclude respondent No.2 to go into the aspect of title of the petitioner with regard to the site in dispute and thereafter provide information to respondent No.3 for the purpose of connection / disconnection of the power supply. As it is the apprehension of the petitioner that respondent No.2 may demolish the structures unauthorisedly, respondent No.2 is hereby directed not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner without following due process of law. No order as to costs. __________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J September 11, 2009. KTL/KVSN