IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 14159 of 2008 Between: Koilada Bhoolokamma @ Mahalakshmi, W/o Late Ramunaidu Dr. No. 53-39-8, KRM Colony, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Engineer (ELectrical)., APEPDCL., 33/11 KV, Vidyuth Upa Kendram, Zone-I, HB colony, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Superintending Engineer (Operations Division), Zone-I, APEPDCL., Opp. Green Park Hotel, Visakhapatnam. 3 The A.P. Eastern Power Distribution Company Ltd., rep by its Chairman & Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. .....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 issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the Respondents in not providing the electricity supply pursuant to he application dated 5-5-2007 as illegal and arbitrary, consequently direct the Respondents to consider the application of the petitioner dated 5-5-2007 in accordance with the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 and the General Terms and conditions of Supply and provide the electricity supply to the petitioner premises in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.RAMA GOPAL Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.O.MANOHER REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No: 14159 of 2008 O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in not providing the electricity supply pursuant to her application dated 05- 05-2007 is arbitrary and illegal apart from being contrary to the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 as well as the General Terms and Conditions of Supply. The petitioner claims title and possession in respect of 542.64 square meters situated in Sy.No.6/3 (P) Ward No.25 of Maddipalem, Visakhapatnam having acquired the same under a registered gift deed dated 17- 08-1964. It is stated that pursuant to the declaration made by her under the provisions of Urban Ceiling Act, 1976 (Act 22 of 1976), she was declared as surplus land holder of 6584 square meters of vacant land. However, she made an application under Section 20(1) (a) of the Act 22 of 1976 seeking exemption and having considered the same, G.O.Ms.No.1227 dated 26-06-2006 was issued allowing an extent of 542.64 square meters exempting the same from the provisions of chapter III of Act 22 of 1976. Thus, it is pleaded by the petitioner that she acquired absolute title over the property in question. Accordingly, she raised a small structure on the said land and made an application on 05-05-2007 for providing electricity supply by paying requisite fee of Rs.1,325/-. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in considering her application and providing electricity supply, the petitioner got issued a legal notice dated 05-06-2008. In response to the same, the respondents issued a reply dated 21-06-2008 stating that one Smt. Sunitha Prakash Madhura made a complaint dated 23-04- 2007 to the Manager of the customer call center of A P E P D C Limited, Siripuram, Visakhapatnam claiming that she was the owner of the very same property to which the petitioner seeking a power supply and requested the Department not to release the power supply. In support of her claim, she also produced a registered sale deed and therefore, the power supply cannot be provided to the petitioner since there is a dispute with regard to the title and ownership of the premises in question. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the present writ petition is ﬁled contending that it is not open to the respondents to reject to provide electricity supply on the alleged title dispute. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁeld on behalf of the respondents, the stand in their reply notice dated 21-06- 2008 has been reiterated and it is further stated that the respondents have no objection to release power supply to the petitioner after the dispute of title to the property is decided. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. As could be seen from the material on record, the petitioner herein ﬁled O.S.No.705 of 2007 in the Court of the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam against Smt. Sunitha Prakash Madhura and another seeking permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of the property in question. Pending the said suit, the Civil Court, by order dated 16-04-2007 granted temporary injunction and the same is in operation as on today. Having regard to the said temporary injunction granted and other material available on record, the claim of the petitioner that she is in possession of the property in question is substantiated. As a matter of fact, the respondents in their counter affidavit did not dispute the possession claimed by the petitioner, but only contended that there is a title dispute with regard to property in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even assuming that the title claimed by the petitioner in respect of the property in question is in dispute, as per the General Terms and Conditions of Supply, such dispute is not a bar to provide supply of electricity. The learned counsel placed reliance upon clause 5.2.3 of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply and submitted that an application made even by an occupier of the premises for supply of electricity can be considered in case he furnishes 3 times the normal security deposit apart from providing proof of his being in lawful occupation of the premises. Having regard to the said provision, I am of the opinion that the respondents cannot keep the application pending merely on the ground that a title dispute has been raised by a 3rd party. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s application dated 05-05-2007 in terms of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably with in a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 16-09-2008 KLP