THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.21782 OF 2008 ORDER : The petitioner herein is in possession and enjoyment of premises bearing No.14-2-201 of T.P. Area, Tirupati, Chittoor District, to which the power supply was provided vide Service Connection Nos.18888 and 8992. It appears that the 3rd respondent herein is also claiming title in respect of the above said premises as a co-owner and the suit for injunction ﬁled by the petitioner herein is dismissed. The petitioner ﬁled an Appeal – A.S.No.155 of 2007 – on the ﬁle of the V- Additional District Judge, Tirupati, which is pending. It is the case of the petitioner that by virtue of the order of this Court dated 15.7.2008 in C.M.A.No.621 of 2008 status quo has been directed to be maintained till the disposal of the said appeal. While so, the 2nd respondent – Additional Assistant Engineer, A.P.S.P. Distribution Company Limited, Tirupati - issued a notice dated 9.7.2008 calling upon the petitioner to produce the documentary evidence to show his ownership over the premises and also to produce no objection from the joint owner of the premises within a period of seven days. In response to the same, the petitioner submitted his objections on 15.7.2008. However, without considering the same, the 2nd respondent disconnected the power supply on 15.7.2008 itself and issued the impugned proceedings dated 22.7.2008 stating that the petitioner failed to submit his objections within the speciﬁed time. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is ﬁled seeking a declaration that the action of the 2nd respondent is arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents 1 & 2. Various contentions have been raised by the petitioner assailing the impugned action including that the 2nd respondent has no power to disconnect the power supply merely on the basis of the representation of the 3rd respondent in the absence of violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement as provided under Condition No.5.9.4.1 of the General Terms & Conditions of Supply. However, I am not inclined to go into merits of the case since it is apparent that the impugned disconnection on 15.7.2008 is in violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore the same is liable to be declared as illegal on that ground alone. It is to be noted that by notice dated 9.7.2008 the 2nd respondent called upon the petitioner to submit his reply within seven days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The impugned order dated 22.7.2008 itself shows that the petitioner submitted his representation with supporting documents and the same was received by the 2nd respondent on 16.7.2008. However, the same was not considered by the 2nd respondent merely on the ground that the reply of the petitioner was not received within the specified time. Even if it is taken that the notice dated 9.7.2008 was served on the petitioner on the very same day, the reply received from the petitioner on 16.7.2008 was well within the time speciﬁed in the notice dated 9.7.2008. Hence, the impugned disconnection on 15.7.2008, on the face of it, was arbitrary and illegal, apart from being violative of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22.7.2008 is hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representation of the petitioner, received by them on 16.7.2008, and pass appropriate orders afresh in accordance with law. The power supply to the petitioner’s service connection shall be restored forthwith and the same shall be continued till appropriate order is passed as directed above. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 30.09.2008 kgr/gbs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No: 21782 of 2008 Between: M. Raghava Reddy. ..... PETITIONER AND Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd., represented by its divisional Engineer, Operation, Old Tiruchanur Road, Tirupati, Chittoor District and two others. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. K.BHEEMA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY (SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following: