THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.6087 OF 2008 Dt.06-09-2010 Between: M/s. Shravanthi Constructions Private Limited, Rep. By its Director. …. Petitioner AND The A.P. Central Distribution Company, Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director and others …. Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.6087 OF 2008 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in disconnecting the power supply to the petitioner’s Service Connection bearing No.S1-23087, LT Category-II, situated in land admeasuring 12,951 square yards in Survey No.20 (New) T.S. No.4/2, Yellareddiguda, Hyderabad as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003. 2. Petitioner is a Civil Construction Company and it has entered into a Development Agreement – cum – General Power of Attorney with the LIC Employees’ Mutually Aided Cooperative House Building Society Limited (for short ‘the Society’) to develop the land admeasuring an extent of 12,951 square yards in Survey No.20 (New) T.S. No.4/2, Yellareddiguda, Hyderabad. Petitioner contends that the Society is the owner of the said land and it gave a letter to the 2nd respondent expressing no objection for providing electricity to the petitioner company. Accordingly, the petitioner made an application to the 1st respondent for release of L.T. Commercial Category-II Power Supply and after collecting necessary charges, 1st respondent released L.T. Category – II Service Connection to the petitioner in the month of August 2007. On 30-10-2007, 2nd respondent disconnected the power supply to the petitioner’s service connection, without assigning any reasons. Subsequently, petitioner came to know the remarks made in the letter dated 30-10-2007 of the Assistant Engineer, Ameerpet Section, APCPDCL, addressed to the Assistant Accounts Officer, APCPDCL, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad for disconnecting the power supply to his service connection, which reads as under: “The above service has been disconnected from the pole with a final reading 1084 on 30-10-2007. Hence, the final bill may be issue as per given reading particulars as the consumer requested to dismantle of service due to Builder Agency cancelled, cancellation Agreement copy is enclosed.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that insofar as cancellation of the agreement between the Society and the petitioner, civil disputes are pending. 4. While admitting the writ petition on 04-04-2008, this Court passed the following interim order: “The respondents are directed to restore the power supply to the abovementioned service connection, subject to the following terms: 1. The petitioner shall clear all the arrears, if any, due on the service connection in question, and 2. The petitioner shall file an indemnity bond before respondent No.2 undertaking that it will be responsible for all the liabilities that may arise in future in connection with the service connection standing in its name, within a period of two weeks from today.” 5. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that now the petitioner is not in possession of the premises and therefore, the question of providing power supply to the said connection, does not arise. 6. Be that as it may, before disconnecting the electricity supply to the subject premises, no notice of any kind was issued to the petitioner. Under those circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merits, the writ petition can be disposed of directing respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner, after putting all the parties including third parties, if any in possession, on notice and after hearing all the parties, pass appropriate orders as per law within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the meanwhile, status quo as on today, shall continue. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________ C.V. RAMULU, J September 06, 2010. KTL