IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8630 of 2004 Between: V. Suri Babu, S/o. Ramaswamy, H.No.22-15-1-87, Banu Nagar, Via Satyanarayanapuram, Madhurangar Road, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintending Engineer, Operation, Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P., Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2 The Asst. Divisional Engineer, (Operation) Distribution II Mutyalampadu, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3 Venna Venkateswara Rao S/o. Ramaswamy 22-15-81, Bhanu Nagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District (R3 is impleaded as per court order dt. 13-12-2004 in WPMP 17871 of 2004) ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned action of the respondents in not providing power supply to the house of the petitioner in spite of submission of application with all compliance as highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the provisions of Indian Electricity Act and Electricity supply Act, 1948. Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. G.V. Shivaji Counsel for respondents 1 and 2: Mr. O. Manohar Reddy (S.C. FOR APTRANSCO) Counsel for respondent No.3: Mr. T. Ravi Kumar The Court made the following Order: Petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not providing electricity power supply to his house as illegal and arbitrary. Petitioner claims that the house which he is living in, i.e. H.No.22-15-1-87, Bhanu Nagar, Madhuranagar Road, Vijayawada, has fallen to his share in the partition said to have taken place among the family members. It is his grievance that though he filed application to the respondents seeking electricity service connection to the said house, no action has been taken. However, it is not in dispute that the house for which electricity service connection is sought is in the name of the third respondent who has filed counter affidavit disputing the ownership and possession of the petitioner over the said house. As per condition Nos.3 and 3.2 of the terms and conditions of supply of electricity framed by the Electricity Board in exercise of powers under Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, the Electricity Board is empowered to require the applicant to give proof of his being in lawful occupation of the premises and also execute an indemnity bond seeking electricity service. As much as there is a dispute with regard to ownership and lawful possession of the house in question, which is of civil nature, I do not find any illegality in the action of respondents 1 and 2 in not acceding to the request of the petitioner for supply of electrical energy. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. June 25, 2009 MRR ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP {JGK}