IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10837 of 2004 Between: 1 Dammala Chandra Rao, S/o.Govindu, R/o.Lankavari Street, Thimmapuram, Kakinada Rural Mandal, East Godavari Dist. 2 Manchala China Venkataraju, S/o.Veeranna, R/o.Lankavari Street, Thimmapuram, Kakinada Rural Mandal, East Godavari Dist. 3 Pedapudi perayya, S/o.Paddaraju, R/o.Lankavari Street, Thimmapuram, Kakinada Rural Mandal, East Godavari Dist. 4 Muddana Srinivas, S/o.Vishnumurthy, R/o.Lankavari Street, Thimmapuram, Kakinada Rural Mandal, East Godavari Dist. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Suptd. Engineer, A.P.Eastern Power Distribution Company Ltd., Near Godavari Dist. 2 The Divisional Engineer, A.P.Eastern Power Distribution Company Ltd., Near Pushkar Ghat, Rajamundry, East Godavari Dist. 3 The Asst. Engineer, D4 Section, E.P.D.Co.Ltd.,AP TRANSCO, Kakinada, East Godavari Dist. 4 Kotipalli Vimalavathi, W/o.Yesu Gandadhara Rao, R/o.Chitrada, Pithapuram Mandal, East Godavari Dist. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ, order or direction, especially one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the official respondents in erecting the electricity poles for laying HT lines through the residential area while having an alternate route, which is viable and suitable and more convenient to the residents of Lakavari street as illegal, arbitrary, and capricious. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.E.V.V.S.RAVI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: O.MANOHAR REDDY(SC FOR APTRANSCO) The Court made the following : ORDER : In this Writ Petition, the petitioners seek a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 to 3 in erecting electric poles for laying HT lines through their residential area, for the purpose of extending electric supply to the fourth respondent, as illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the petitioners that there is alternative area for laying HT lines to extend service connection to the fourth respondent, and if the service lines are to be laid as proposed, the toddy trees existing in the said area, are to be cut off. Initially, there was an interim order of status quo, but subsequently, it was modified. It is submitted that during the pendency of the Writ Petition, in view of the orders passed by this Court, electricity power connection has already been given to the fourth respondent, as he has paid the entire estimated cost of Rs.1,35,420/-, and he is utilizing the same by paying necessary consumption charges. In the counter-affidavit, while denying various allegations made by the petitioners, it is stated that the service lines are not laid in the narrow lane and in fact, the road through which lines are being laid, is a 30 feet road where there are already LT service lines, from which, the petitioners are given service connections. It is further averred in the counter that the proposed lines do not come in the way of the existing buildings, either vertically or horizontally. In view of the averment made in the counter-affidavit that the service lines are laid in 30 feet road, where there already exists LT service lines, through which, petitioners are availing the service connections, I do not find any illegality in laying lines from the said place, to extend power supply to the fourth respondent. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition, which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J. 18th June, 2009. skmr