IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7 of 2011 Between: M/s. Silver Space Furniture, Hyderabad. ..... Petitioner AND APCPDC Limited, rep., by its Superintending Engineer, Hyderabad & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri N. Pramod Counsel for respondents 1-3: Sri O. Manohar Reddy The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7 of 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in considering and accepting the petitioner’s application dated 27.12.2010 for release of fresh supply of electricity to his premises bearing municipal No.6-3-654, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. I have heard Sri N. Pramod, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for APCPDCL representing respondent Nos.1 to 3. The petitioner claims to be in possession of the first floor western side of premises bearing M.No.6-3-654, Hyderabad Stock Exchange Building, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. It is his pleaded case that in pursuance of an oral lease, respondent No.4 has permitted him to occupy the said part of the premises, wherein he is running a furniture shop under the name and style of ‘Silver Space Furniture’. On the no objection given by respondent No.4 on 27.07.2006, respondent Nos.1 to 3 have released power supply to the petitioner in the name of one Sri Anant Agarwal, who claims to be his employee. The petitioner has filed O.S.No.182 of 2008 in the Court of the learned II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for perpetual injunction restraining respondent No.4 from interfering with his possession from the property, and along with the said suit, he also filed an application for ad interim injunction, which was dismissed by the Court. The C.M.A., filed by the petitioner is stated to be pending in this Court. Apprehending that the supply may be disconnected by respondent Nos.1 to 3 at the instance of respondent No.6, who is the lessee of respondent No.4, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.No.32008 of 2010 for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in threatening to disconnect the power supply, as illegal and arbitrary. While dismissing the said Writ Petition, this Court observed as under: “At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.6 in collusion with respondent Nos.1 to 3 has illegally got the service connection standing in the name of respondent No.5 transferred on his name and prevailed upon respondent Nos.1 to 3 to disconnect the power supply. The learned counsel, representing Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3, on instructions, submitted that respondent No.6 addressed a letter to respondent Nos.1 to 3 seeking to dismantle the service connection on the ground that he has two service connections and that on his request, the service was dismantled and supply was disconnected. In my opinion, the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for restoration of electricity which is an amenity for convenient enjoyment of the property is not appropriate because disconnection of electricity by respondent Nos.1 to 3 was effected at the instance of respondent No.6. The facts noted above would clearly reveal that there are civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.4, and respondent No.6 is claiming through respondent No.4. Having approached the competent civil Court by way of a civil suit, the petitioner could as well have applied for appropriate relief relating to service connection. On the petitioner’s own showing he has failed to get an order of injunction for protecting his possession. In the light of these facts, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The petitioner is left free to approach the competent civil Court either in the pending suit or by way of filing a substantive suit for the relief, which is claimed in the present writ petition.” Undeterred by the dismissal of the said Writ Petition, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition, wherein he has not even referred to the filing of his previous Writ Petition. When this case came up for hearing and this Court has pointed out that the earlier Writ Petition was dismissed, the petitioner has filed an additional affidavit, wherein he has sought to justify non-mentioning of filing of the earlier Writ Petition on the ground that the present Writ Petition is based on a fresh cause of action, namely; inaction of the official respondents in releasing the power supply. In my opinion, whether the petitioner sought for the relief of restoration of power supply or release of fresh connection, the observations made by this Court in Writ Petition No.32008 of 2010 apply with equal force. Assuming that the petitioner’s counsel had his own perception in preparing the case, the fact of filing previous Writ Petition constitutes part of foundational facts for further litigation and the same cannot by any stretch be omitted from being mentioned in the present Writ Petition. In all fairness, the petitioner is expected to have referred to the factum of his filing the earlier Writ Petition when the relief claimed in both the Writ Petitions pertains to the power supply to the premises in dispute. The conduct of the petitioner in not disclosing this vital fact suggests that he is desperately searching for excuses when his misdemeanor was pointed out by the Court. Therefore, I am not convinced with the explanation offered by the petitioner in his additional affidavit. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being discretionary, the petitioner, who approached this Court with uncleaned hands, is not entitled to such discretionary relief. While the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone, at any rate, the findings and observations on the basis of which Writ Petition No.32008 of 2010 was filed applies in all fours to the present Writ Petition as well disentitling the petitioner for grant of any relief in this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/-. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.7 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 01.02.2011 ES