IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 8818 of 2009 Between: Chintam Neelamma W/o.Rama Rao R/o.Venkatadrigudem, Chintalapudi Mandal, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Divisional Electrical Engineer, Operation Division, APEPDCL, Eluru, W.G. District. 2 The Assistant Divisional Engineer, APEPDCL, Kamavarapukota, W.G. District. 3 The Addl. Assistant Divisional Engineer, APEPDCL, Raghavapuram, Chintalapudi (M), W.G. District. 4 Ch.Venkateswara Rao S/o.Bagaiah Venkatadrigudem, Chintalapudi Mandal, West Godavari District. .....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 Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in disconnection of power supply as illegal arbitrary and violative of Article 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India and against principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to transfer the SC No.200 in R.S.No.1/3B in an extent of Ac.4.30 cents of Venkatadrigudem Village, Chintalapudi Mandal, West Godavari District in my favour and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.APPADHARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: O.MANOHAR REDDY(SC FOR APTRANSCO) The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 8818 of 2009 Oral order: The petitioner states that though she is owner of the land in an extent of Acs. 4.30 cents in R.S. No. 1/3B of Venkatadrigudem village, Chintalapudi Mandalam, West Godavari District, electricity Service Connection No. 200 stands in the name of unofficial respondent No.4. That due to civil disputes between her and unofficial respondent No.4, on the complaint lodged by respondent No.4, respondent No.3 disconnected the power supply, which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, she filed the present writ petition seeking directions to the official respondents to transfer the electricity connection in her name and restore the power supply. The learned Standing Counsel for the official respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on instructions submitted electricity service connection stands in the name of respondent No.4 and on his request, they have disconnected the power supply, and the request of the petitioner for transfer of the service connection standing in the name of respondent No.4 to her name cannot be done because there is no provision which enable transfer of service connection from one name to another. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the official respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Having regard to the stand taken by the official respondent Nos. 1 to 3, neither any exception can be taken to their action in not considering the request of the petitioner for transfer of the service connection standing in the name of respondent No.4 to her name nor can any direction be given to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to effect such transfer, particularly when it is their specific case that there is no provision which empowers them to effect the transfer as requested by the petitioner. However, if the petitioner intends to have power supply to her land, she is at liberty to make appropriate application seeking electricity power supply connection, and if any such application is made, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 shall consider and pass appropriate orders, and take appropriate steps for providing electricity supply connection to the petitioner without any further delay. With the observations as above, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 1st May, 2009 KSR