IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.29776 of 2011 Between: M/s. Belson Kotels Pvt., Ltd., Hyderabad & another. … Petitioners And The Superintending Engineer, A.P.C.P.D.C.L., Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri S. Satyanarayana Prasad for Kumari C. Sindhu Kumari Counsel for respondents 1-3: Sri O. Manohar Reddy Counsel for respondents 4&5: Sri R.A. Achutanand This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.29776 of 2011 ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in not restoring the power supply to the petitioners’ premises through the existing transformer with or without circuit breaker, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri S. Satyanarayana Prasad, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Standing counsel for APCPDCL representing respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri R.A. Achutanand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5. Petitioner No.2 and respondent No.5 are natural brothers. Petitioner No.2 has power supply agreement with the official respondents. The power supply is being availed by the petitioners through the existing transformer in the premises, which is the subject matter of dispute in O.S.No.1425 of 2011. The said suit is filed by B. Ganapathi Rao, who is another brother of petitioner No.2, and respondent No.5 in the name of respondent No.4 for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners herein from using any part of the open space bearing Door No.4-1-1000, New No.4-1-1000/B and B/1 situated at Abid Road, Hyderabad, excluding the transformer room. When the Vacuum Circuit Breaker (VCB), which forms part of the transformer, has developed repairs, the power supply was disconnected to the petitioners’ premises. When the petitioners approached the official respondents for repair and restoration of power supply, they have expressed their helplessness on the ground that respondent Nos.4 and 5 have prevented them from attending the repairs and restoration of power supply. This has forced the petitioners to file the present Writ Petition. Sri R.A. Achutanand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5, have fairly stated that even in the suit filed by his clients, the transformer room is excluded from the prayer for permanent injunction and that in paragraph 13 of the plaint, it is stated that plaintiff No.1 has already taken legal steps to remove the transformer through process of law and that however, until the transformer is shifted, the defendants electricians will be permitted for maintenance purpose only. The learned counsel further stated that his clients only prevented the petitioners from unauthorizedly excavating the disputed land and that they never prevented either the petitioners or the employees of the official respondents from attending to the repairs of the transformer. In view of the fair submission of the learned counsel, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to take all such measures as are necessary for restoration of power supply to petitioner No.1. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 shall not interfere with the functioning of transformer or its repairs and maintenance either by the official respondents or by the petitioners in future, without following due process of law. As a sequel, WPMP.No.36886 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 22.11.2011 ES