IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.23193 of 2009 Between: Mr.B.Pramod Kumar Reddy … Petitioner And The Superintending Engineer, Operation Central Circle, Mint Compound, Hyderabad and others … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.23193 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not taking action in pursuance of the representation dated 19.10.2009 for not disconnecting the service connections No.F3-3816, F3-3599 and F-36485 on the name of the 3rd respondent situated at H.No.3-5-926/13/1, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. The claim of the petitioner is that he is absolute and lawful owner of the land admeasuring 2200 square yards situated at Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. Subsequently, two buildings were constructed in the said land bearing Municipal Nos.3-5-926/8 to 13 and 3-5-926/13/1. In the said premises, he obtained electricity service connection in the year 1962 vide service connection No.F3-790. In the part of above premises, the 3rd respondent is in illegal occupation without his knowledge, consent and he obtained electricity service connection from the 2nd respondent under service connection No.F3-3816 on 08.04.1996. Recently he came to know about the said connection, as he is residing at Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. Thereafter, he requested the 1st respondent through letter dated 23.12.2008 to furnish the particulars of the documents required for getting electricity connection from the department and particularly the documents submitted by the 3rd respondent at the time of obtaining electricity connection from the office. On his complaint, the 2nd respondent addressed a letter to the 1st respondent informing that no documents are available in his office as the old records are disposed off. Further, the 1st respondent addressed a letter dated 28.01.2009 and informed the petitioner that the following documents are required to be submitted for a fresh connection. a) “Signed application form along with the signed declaration duly filled therein. b) Proof of ownership (sale deed, allotment/possession letters lease deed, municipal tax payment receipt) or proof of occupancy (lease/rental deed with land lord, electoral identity card or passport or PAN card along with proof of ownership of land lord). c) Indemnity bond (letter of consent from landlord to tenant/lessee/occupier). d) Wiring completion report (from a licensed electrical contractor) e) Test report f) Demand draft for new connection charges.” In the said letter, the 1st respondent further informed that there are no documents are available in regard to release of the service connection No.F3-3816 in the name of the 3rd respondent, which was released in the year 1996. Through, further letter dated 05.06.2009, the 1st respondent informed that the 3rd respondent obtained not only above shown connection but also other two connections bearing Nos.F3-3599 and F3-6485, even though he has no right to do so. He further informed that the 3rd respondent submitted a copy of the order in A.S. No.491 of 2004 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad and that order does not disclose the title and ownership of the 3rd respondent to the property where electricity connections are given. Therefore, his case is that the 3rd respondent has nothing to do with the ownership of the said property, therefore, he made a representation dated 19.10.2009 before the respondents 1 and 2 to disconnect the aforesaid electricity service connections but the respondents 1 and 2 colluded with the 3rd respondent and are not taking action in pursuance of his representation dated 19.10.2009. Hence, the present writ petition. On behalf of the official respondents, no counter has been filed but the 3rd respondent filed counter denying the averments of the petitioner. The 3rd respondent, in his Court, inter alia, submitted that the petitioner is his elder brother. The schedule land admeasuring 2200 square yards was purchased during the lifetime of their father, when the petitioner was 9 years old. Subsequently in a family settlement amongst himself, petitioner and their late father in 1973, premises bearing No.3-5-926/13/1 fell to his share and whereas the other premises bearing No.3-5-926/8 to 13 fell to the share of the petitioner and one house in the Banswada village fell to the share of their father. By virtue of the said family arrangement, he became the owner and possessor of the said premises and his name was got mutated in Municipal records in the year 1976, since then he has been paying the taxes to the Municipality in respect of the said premises. It is further submitted that when his brother, petitioner, tried to interfere with his possession during the year 1997, he filed a suit in O.S. No.1430 of 1997 on the file of IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad. After contest, the said suit was decreed in his favour vide judgment and decree dated 31.03.2004 and granted permanent injunction in respect of the said premises. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the petitioner preferred an appeal in A.S. No.491 of 2004 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad, which subsequently, on merits, dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 28.06.2006 and the same has become final since, to the best of his knowledge, no second appeal was preferred. Further, it is also submitted that both the Courts have specifically given the finding that he is in possession of the premises in question and the petitioner is trying to interfere with his possession and forcing his tenants not to pay rents to him. Further it is also submitted that in fact, there are several civil disputes in between himself and the petitioner, which are pending in civil Courts under the jurisdiction of Nizamabad District, where most of their properties are located. The petitioner has been continuously harassing him on one or other pretext by filing false criminal and civil complaints. Their father died in the year 1996 and taking advantage of untimely death of their father, the petitioner being elder brother, kept all the original documents relating to partition, family arrangement deed, mutation proceedings of his premises in his custody and creating all sorts of troubles to him. The petitioner being fully aware of the fact that the mutation in respect of his premises has been effected way back in the year 1976 and that the electricity connections were obtained in the year 1996, resorted to file the present writ petition at a belated stage itself goes to show that the petitioner is bent upon to harass him with a mala fide intention to settle the scores in civil disputes. It is also further submitted that he obtained service connection No.F3-3816 on 08.04.1996 from the 2nd respondent and the connection was given to his premises after due verification and he has been paying the electricity charges in respect of the said connection regularly. He has absolutely no knowledge as to the petitioner requesting the 1st respondent to furnish the documents required for getting the electricity connection and also regarding the documents submitted by him and also further correspondence taken between the official respondents and the petitioner. With regard to the other two connections bearing Nos.F3-3599 and F3-6485, the petitioner has absolutely no right or concern whatsoever nor having any locus to question the same, likewise the earlier connection. Further, it is submitted that three months prior to filing of this writ petition, the petitioner filed a comprehensive civil suit in O.S. No.417 of 2009 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad in respect of his premises bearing No.3-5-926/13/1, seeking for declaration of title and possession by making several false allegations and the same is pending. Having filed a suit for declaration on one hand, the petitioner cannot maintain the present writ petition even before getting a decree of declaration from competent civil Court in respect of his premises. Eventually, he submitted that he is not aware of the representation dated 19.10.2009 addressed by the petitioner to the official respondents to disconnect the electricity connection standing in his name and also denied that the said respondents colluded with him. Hence, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel and perused the material on record. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that without there being any title over the premises in question, the 3rd respondent obtained electricity connection, where he is in illegal possession. Therefore, he made a representation to the official respondents to furnish the documents that were filed by the 3rd respondent while getting the electricity connection and to disconnect the same. Bur the official respondents are not taking any action. The learned standing counsel appearing for the official respondents 1 and 2, submitted that in pursuance of the representation of the petitioner seeking certain information and documents, the 1st respondent addressed a letter dated 28.1.2009 to the petitioner informing the documents to be submitted for release of a new electricity service connection. Further, it is also informed that the service connection No.F3-3816 was released in the name of Sri Vikram Reddy on 08.04.1996. As the service connection was released in the year 1996, i.e., 13 years back, the concerned applications and documents are not available in the office, as the old records are being disposed off. One more letter was also addressed by the 1st respondent to the petitioner on 05.06.2009 and according to which, the 3rd respondent had produced a copy of the judgment and decree passed in A.S. No.491 of 2004 passed by the Chief Judge, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad on 28.06.2006. Further it is also informed through the said letter that there are four service connections existing in the premises in question and the payments for all the service connections are up to date and hence the electric services are not liable for disconnection. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent submitted that having regard to the dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, the petitioner is trying to create problems to him either one way or the other and the present writ petition is also filed to create one such problem. The petitioner appears to have made a representation to the official respondents seeking to furnish the documents, submitted by the 3rd respondent while getting the electricity connection, and also seeking to disconnect the electricity service connections. Since the electric service connections stood in the name of the 3rd respondent and there are no dues in respect of the said connections, the official respondents cannot take any action on the representation of the petitioner to disconnect his electric service connections. From a close perusal of the case, practically it is a dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent and unnecessarily the official respondents 1 and 2 were dragged into the litigation, who are in no way concerned. However, the subject matter of this writ petition is that though the petitioner made a representation dated 19.10.2009 to the official respondents, seeking disconnection of electricity service connection to the premises in question, the official respondents have not taken any action. Admittedly, in pursuance of the representation made by the petitioner, seeking certain information along with documents, the respondents vide letters dated 28.01.2009 and 05.06.2009 furnished the required information while intimating that the documents sought for in his representation were disposed off, as the same are old records. Further, it is not the case of the petitioner that the official respondents have not at all furnished the information as sought for by him. It is to be noted here that the official respondents have categorically mentioned in their letter dated 05.06.2009 that there are four service connections existing in the premises in question and the payments for all the above services are up to date. Under these circumstances, this Court cannot direct the official respondents to take action in respect of the representation dated 19.10.2009 of the petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition is misconceived and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, for the above reasons, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 17.06.2010. LSK