The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.8418 of 2011 Date: 14-12-2011 Between: Khaja Kareemuddin ..... Petitioner AND The Chairman and Managing Director, APcPDCL, Mind Compound, Saifabad, Hyderabad and 4 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.A.Ravi Shankar Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4: Mr.S.V.Ramana for Mr.O.Manohar Reddy, SC for APCPDCL Counsel for respondent No.5: ----- The Court made the following : Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to direct the respondents to shift the existing 250 KVA Saber Nagar Ground DTR from KHK function hall, Saber Nagar, Hyderabad, to a distance of two meters as per the sanctioned order, dated 28-12-2010, of respondent No.2. The petitioner is the owner of KHK Function hall situated in premises bearing Municipal No.12-2-386/A/1, Saber Nagar, Asifnagar, Hyderabad. As there is a distribution transformer situated near the function hall and the same is found obstructing vehicular movement, the local MLA addressed a letter to respondent No.2- Superintendent of Engineer/OP, Central Circle, APCPDCL, to shift the existing distribution transformer to a distance of two meters in order to ease traffic jam. Accordingly, respondent No.2 having sanctioned the work of shifting the transformer vide his memo, dated 28-12-2010, however, requested the petitioner to bear the entire cost of Rs.96200/- therefor. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner, which is not disputed, that he has paid the said amount and the work was entrusted to respondent No.5, who is a licensed contractor. Feeling aggrieved by non-shifting of the transformer as yet, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.4, it is admitted that, in pursuance of the sanction given for shifting the 250 KVA transformer, the contractor has constructed the base and that, at that stage, the residents of the locality gave an objection stating that shifting of transformer would cause traffic jam. Respondent No.4 placed reliance on the retail supply tariff order of the A.P.Regulatory Commission issued for the financial year 2011-12 wherein it has stipulated that transformer location for residential and commercial complexes should be within the respective premises. The petitioner filed a reply-affidavit along with two photographs, the correctness of which is not disputed. A perusal of these photographs would show that there is already a small transformer, intended for supply of electricity to the petitioner’s premises, in existence. A new pedestal has been raised parallel to the existing small transformer. There is a distance of about 2 meters from the 250 KVA transformer, which is permitted to be shifted, and the pedestal raised for locating the transformer after its shifting. To the naked eye, it is clearly evident that shifting of the 250 KVA transformer from the existing base to the proposed place will definitely create some space for further movement of traffic instead of causing obstruction. Till now, respondent No.2 has not cancelled the permission granted for shifting. If the A.P.Regulatory Commission has issued instructions, respondent No.2 ought not to have granted permission for shifting. On the facts of the present case, I do not find any justification, whatsoever, for the respondents to stop shifting of the transformer, after collecting charges from the petitioner, when such shifting would ease the traffic jam to some extent. For the above mentioned reasons, the respondents are directed to complete the process of shifting the transformer, in pursuance of the permission granted by respondent No.2, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. As a sequel, WPMP.No.10454 of 2011, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 14th December, 2011 LUR