THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.32603 of 2010 Date:09.02.2011 Between: M. Sadananda and another ..... Petitioners AND The Assistant Engineer, APCPDCL, Ranga Reddy District and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri K.Suresh Kumar Reddy Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sri O.Manohar Reddy, standing counsel for APCPDCL Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri P.Srinivas Counsel for Respondent Nos.3 and 4:-- The Court made the following: ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioners have questioned the action of respondent No.1 in disconnecting the power supply to the premises bearing No.7-4-272, Navajeevan colony, Near Police Quarters, Balanagar, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioners sought for a consequential direction to respondent No.1 to restore the power supply to the said premises. I have heard Sri K.Suresh Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned standing counsel for APCPDCL representing respondent No.1 and Sri P.Srinivas, learned counsel for respondent No.2. The petitioners and respondent Nos.2 to 4 are blood brothers. There is a dispute among them in sharing the family properties. The petitioners filed O.S.No.468 of 2009, which was evidently dismissed for default by the learned VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. They have pleaded that an application for restoration filed by them is pending. In the meantime, after disposal of the suit, respondent No.2 appeared to have executed a registered gift deed in favour of his wife and thereupon the legatee under the gift deed approached respondent No.1 with a request to disconnect the power supply. However, the petitioners claimed to be in occupation of the property in dispute. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2, it is inter alia stated that he was the lawful owner of the property in dispute and that as the petitioners failed in the suit to get the property partitioned, he has executed a gift deed in favour of his wife. That as respondent No.2 and his wife are unable to pay the electricity charges, they have approached respondent No.1 with a request to disconnect the power supply. The facts noted above would show that the brothers are litigating among themselves over the property. Though the suit was dismissed for default, the petitioners’ application for its restoration is stated to be pending. It is trite that the electricity is an unavoidable necessity in modern days. Whoever may be in possession of the property they require electricity for day to day living. By getting the electricity disconnected, neither respondent No.2 nor his wife would get any advantage. If they assert their right over the property in question, they are entitled to avail appropriate remedies for recovery of possession. As regards the submission of the learned counsel for respondent No.2 that respondent No.2 and his wife are unable to pay the electricity charges are forced to seek disconnection of the power supply, it would be appropriate that the petitioners shall continue to pay the electricity charges without there being any liability whatsoever on respondent No.2 or his wife. Till such time as respondent No.2 and his wife take delivery of the possession of the property in accordance with law, power supply to the premises shall continue and the petitioners shall continue to pay the electricity charges, failing which respondent No.1 is entitled to disconnect the same. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, interim order dated 24.12.2010 is vacated and W.P.M.P.No.41437 of 2010 and W.V.M.P.No.377 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 09th February, 2011 GHN