IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 14730 of 2005 Between: Singana Easwaraiah, S/o. Papaiah, R/o. Gondivaripalli, Rajampet Mandal, Cuddapah District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Electrical Chief Engineer, TLC, A.P. Tranco, Cuddapah, 2 The Superintendent Engineer, TLC, 220 KVA Sub-- Station, Cuddapah. .....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 of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the respondent authorities in proposing to lay the 132 KVA Electrical lines across the lands of the petitioner situated in Sy.No. 1070 of Mittamidapalli, Rajampet Mandal Cuddapah District without any notice and not passing any orders on the representation dated 07-06-2005 made by the petitioner, as arbitrary, illegal, null and void and is against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent authorities not to lay the 132 KVA electrical line across the lands of the petitioner situated in Sy.No. 1070 of Mittamidapalli, Rajampet Mandal, Cuddapapah district. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.VENKATESWARA RAO GUDAPATI Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: MR.M.SREERAMULU REDDY The Court, at the stage of admission, made the following: Oral order:- The respondents were proposing to lay a 132 KVA electrical line across the lands of the petitioner situated in survey No. 1070 of Mittamidapalli, Rajampet mandal, Kadapa district. The petitioner made a representation dated 07-06-2005 to the 1st respondent pointing out the loss occasioned to him on the respondents’ action and informing them that there is an alternative route for laying the line, which is economical to the respondents. The petitioner’s complaint is that his representation is not being considered and the respondents are continuing to proceed with the work of laying electrical line without considering his representation. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 07-06- 2005 as also the viability and desirability of laying the electrical line on a route alternative to that now proposed, which is through the petitioner’s land. The respondents are required to communicate their decision on the petitioner’s representation dated 07-06-2005 within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. _____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dt. 08-07-2005 Pvks/* To 1 The Electrical Chief Engineer, TLC, A.P. Transco, Cuddapah, 2 The Superintendent Engineer, TLC, 220 KVA Sub-- Station, Cuddapah. 3. 2CCs., to Mr. M. Sreeramulu Reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondents (OUT). 4. 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{CTMP}