THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2768 of 2011 Date:09.02.2011 Between: Banuri Jaya Sri ..... Petitioner AND The Managing Director, APCPDCL, Hyderabad and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri G.L.Narasimha Rao for Sri V. Venkata Mayur Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Sri O.Manohar Reddy, standing counsel for APCPDCL The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to direct respondent Nos.2 and 3 to inspect flat No.404 of Sai Ganesh Towers and issue service connection to the occupant of the said flat and direct action to be taken against respondent No.4 for sanctioning service connection in respect of the said flat in his favour. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The grievance of the petitioner is that while she is the owner of flat No.404, respondent No.2 has sanctioned service connection in favour of respondent No.4, who has nothing to do with the said flat while keeping the petitioner’s application for sanction and release of power supply pending. When the petitioner approached respondent No.2, she was informed that the service connection was already sanctioned to respondent No.4. The petitioner is stated to have made a representation to respondent No.2 for cancelling the service connection released in favour of respondent No.4 and for sanction of service connection in favour of the petitioner. In my opinion, the petitioner is entitled to avail the Grievance Redressal Mechanism created by the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission. As the petitioner has made an application to respondent No.2 on 13.07.2010, the latter is directed to place the complaint before the Grievance Redressal Committee constituted for Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Company Limited within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the complaint, the Grievance Redressal Committee shall issue notice to the petitioner and respondent No.4 and take appropriate decision. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by any such decision, she shall be free to approach the Vidyuth Ombudsmen constituted by the Regulatory Commission. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.3419 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 09th February, 2011 GHN