IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.29180 of 2008 Between: Singireddy Vara Prasad … Petitioner And The Superintending Engineer/Operation/Circle, A.P. Eastern Power Distribution Co., Ltd., Eluru, West Godavari District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri B.P. Raju Counsel for the respondents: Smt. Jyothi Eswar Gogineni The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.29180 of 2008 ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside notice dated 08.08.2008 issued by respondent No.2. The petitioner claims to be a Trustee and Chairman of Sri Shivalayam Temple, Dharmajigudem Village, Lingapalem Mandal, West Godavari District. Under the impugned notice, a sum of Rs.6,179/- was provisionally assessed for the alleged pilferage said to have been committed by the management of the said temple and the petitioner was called upon to pay the entire amount for restoration of power supply. This Court, by order dated 31.12.2008, granted interim direction to the respondents to restore the power supply. In my opinion, as the civil liability of the petitioner requires to be determined finally by the Special Court under Section 154(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003, it is not appropriate for this Court to adjudicate on the merits of the pleas raised in this writ petition. Having regard to the fact that the amount demanded is too meagre, no indulgence is warranted in favour of the petitioner. The payment made by the petitioner, pending determination of the civil liability, is, however, subject to the decision of the Special Court. The petitioner is permitted to pay the amount of Rs.6,179/- within one month. If such payment is made, the power supply shall be continued to the temple and the respondents shall refer the matter to the Special Court for determination of the petitioner’s liability. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.38119 of 2008 and WVMP.No.679 of 2009 are disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 27.07.2010. ES