THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.17318 of 2011 Dated 22nd November, 2011 Between: G.Vijay Kumar …Petitioner And The Divisional Engineer, APSEB, Hindupur, Anantapur District and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri I.Venkata Prasad Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: Sri O.Manohar Reddy Counsel for respondent No.3: Ms.B.Tara Sujatha For Sri A.Hanumantha Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in disconnecting power supply to service connections bearing Nos.2217, 17760 and 17761, vide proceedings, dated 15.02.2006, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner and respondent No.3 are brothers. They have serious dispute over the property bearing D.No17-1-35, RPGT Road, Hindupur, Anantapur. The petitioner filed O.S.No.2 of 2006 for partition and separate possession of the property in dispute. He also filed I.A.No.25 of 2006 in the said suit for a direction to the respondents therein, including respondent No.3 herein, for restoration of electricity supply. The said I.A., was allowed by order, dated 05.12.2006, by the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Hindupur. Questioning the said order, respondent No.3 filed C.R.P.No.1933 of 2007, which was disposed of by this Court with the direction to the Court below to dispose of O.S.No.2 of 2006 within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. This Court further directed that the interim order, dated 26.04.2007, suspending the order in I.A.No.25 of 2006 shall continue till the disposal of the suit. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.No.78 of 2010 in the pending suit for restraining respondent No.3 and another from raising objection on restoration of power supply to the disputed premises. The Court below after a detailed consideration of the said I.A., dismissed the same observing that any such direction, if given, would constitute contempt of the order in the civil revision petition referred to above. Being unsuccessful in obtaining relief in the pending suit, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. In my opinion, as the petitioner has failed to secure restoration of power supply in the pending suit, he is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as an alternative remedy. As noted above, this Court in the civil revision petition directed the stay of the order in I.A.No.25 of 2006 till the disposal of the suit. By virtue of the said direction, the petitioner is denied the relief of obtaining restoration of power supply till the disposal of the suit. This order having become final, no relief, which may come into conflict with the direction given by this Court in the above-mentioned civil revision petition, can be granted. On the premises as above, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate steps for disposal of the suit as directed by this Court in the civil revision petition. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.20810 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 22nd November, 2011 VGB