IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4671 of 2008 Between: Prajna Institute of Technology and Management Ramakrishnapuram, Palasa, Srikakulam District, Rep. by its Chairman Tangudu Vaikunta Rao S/o. Kameswara Rao, aged 57 yrs, Occ: Business R/o. Palasa, Srikakulam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent of Engineer, Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P.Ltd., Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. 2 The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P.Ltd., Palasa, Srikakulam District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.RAVI SHANKAR Counsel for the Respondents: MR.O.MANOHER REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not supplying 3 phase power supply continuously to the petitioner- Institute as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to supply power continuously. Heard Sri A.Ravi Shankar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri S.V.Ramana, learned Counsel representing Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. In the affidavit, filed in support of the Writ Petition, it is stated that the petitioner is running an Engineering College having been started in the academic year 2007- 08; that on an application made by the petitioner, 3 phase connection for 25 KVA was agreed to be supplied to the said College and; that there are frequent power interruptions in supply of electricity to the said College. At the hearing, Sri A.Ravi Shankar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, reiterated the contentions raised in the affidavit, and submitted that because of the frequent power interruptions, the petitioner is facing severe inconvenience between 9 AM and 5 PM. Sri S.V.Ramana, learned Counsel for the respondents, on instructions, stated that the petitioner- Institute is located in a rural area and is connected with a common feeder supplying power to agriculture connections. He further submitted that because of the regulation of power supply to agriculture connections, 3 phase supply is being maintained for 7 hours, and during the rest of the period, 2 phase power supply, subject to interruptions on account of system exigencies, is being maintained. The learned Counsel further submitted that if the petitioner seeks power supply without the above- mentioned regulations, he is entitled to seek erection of an independent feeder subject to his payment of the expenditure required for laying such feeder. Having considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot seek uninterrupted power supply, when his service is connected with a common feeder. I find submission of the learned Counsel for the respondents, in offering to lay an independent feeder at the expense of the petitioner, reasonable. The petitioner-Institute failed to point out any statutory provision or condition in the agreement, under which, it is entitled to uninterrupted power supply. The Writ Petition is, therefore, disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to seek power supply through an independent feeder in accordance with the statutory Provisions, Regulations and Terms and Conditions in force. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.6061 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 15th April, 2008 lur