IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 782 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 23/03/2009 in WP NO : 2809 OF 2009 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Mohd. Ismail Ghori S/o. late Mohd. Ibrahim Ghori R/o.H.No.12-2-39/A/3, Muradnagar, Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Chief General Manager, A.P.C.P.D.C.L. Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Begum Bazar, D-XXV, City-IV, A.P.C.P.D.C.L., (South), Hyderabad. 3 The Accounts Officer, A.O., GRC South Circle, A.P.C.P.D.C.L., Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.A.RAVI SHANKAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.O.MANOHER REDDY The Division Bench of this Court made the following : Judgment follows 2nd page THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 782 of 2009. J U D G M E N T : (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meenakumari) The writ appeal is filed against order dated 23-3-2009 passed in WP.No. 2809 of 2009 by the learned single Judge, whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition observing that the dispute raised by the writ petitioner is purely civil in nature, remedy of the petitioner, if any, is to approach the lower appellate court, where the appeal said to have been preferred by him is pending adjudication and seek appropriate reliefs. 2. The main writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to remove the meter from the premises bearing No.5-3-661/A, Topkhana, Hyderabad, bearing service connection No.K2-1778 and to pass such other suitable orders. 3. It is stated that in the year 1977, the father of the appellant obtained service connection bearing No.K2-1778 to his Plastic Processing Unit at the premises bearing No.5-3-661/A, situated at Topkhana, Hyderabad and regularly paid electricity consumption charges. While things stood thus, his father made an application in the year 1987 seeking supply of additional load of 18 HP in addition to 21.5 HP which was released on 21-12-1987 and he was served with a supplementary bill dated 05-12-1984 demanding payment of Rs.3,67,287-00 from February 1988 to September 1984 and thereafter his father filed OS.No.1617 of 1984 on the file of the Court of Second Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad questioning the notice dated 05-12-1984 and the learned Judge decreed the suit partly directing the father of the appellant to pay Rs.27,552/- being the back billing for six months. Thereafter the father of the appellant had closed down the unit from 01-10-2008 and the power supply was disconnected but the energy meter is not removed and his father vacated the premises and removed the machinery and the same was informed to the Assistant Divisional Engineer by a letterdated 14-7-2008 and requested him to dismantle the service and take away the box and energy meter and subsequently, he expired on 25-6-2007 but it is his grievance that the respondents, instead of removing the same, are sending bills regularly putting minimum charges to the disconnected power supply illegally. Therefore, the above writ petition was filed seeking a direction to the respondents to remove the meter from the premises in question. 4. On the other hand, the respondents in the counter affidavit averred that against the judgment and decree dated d07-3-2003 passed in OS.No.1617 of 1994 the writ petitioner preferred CCCA.No. 257 of 2005 and the writ petitioner requested for dismantlement of the service only after the death of his father, but as the appeal is pending adjudication, the service was not dismantled and the service was disconnected after receipt of application and the minimum bills are stopped from June 2007 and inasmuch as final orders are awaited and arrears are pending on the service, at this stage, the meter cannot be dismantled. 5. Having heard both sides, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the dispute raised by the writ petitioner is civil in nature and directed the writ petitioner to approach the lower appellate court, where the appeal is pending adjudication and gave liberty to make proper application in CCCA.No. 257 of 2005, which is pending final adjudication before the learned II-Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and seek appropriate reliefs. Aggrieved of the said order, the present writ appeal is filed. 6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned single Judge has failed to take note that OS.No.1617 of 1984 filed by the appellant and CCCA.No.257 of 2005 filed by the respondents pertains to payment of back billing and has got nothing to do with the dismantling of power connection and removing the energy meter and moreover the appeal filed by the respondents herein stands abated because the plaintiff in the suit died on 25-6-2007 and as such no application can be filed in the above appeal for removing the energy meter. It is also contended that the appellant without using the premises was forced to pay the rents, as the energy meter is not removed from the premises. 7. Per contra, Sri O. Manohar Reddy, the learned standing counsel for the respondents contended that the minimum bills are also stopped from June 2007 and that CCCA.No.257 of 2005 is pending adjudication and also arrears are pending on the service, therefore, the meter cannot be dismantled at this stage. The learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition holding that the dispute raised by the appellant is purely civil in nature and therefore the order impugned does not call for any interference by this court. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned standing counsel for the official respondents and as can be seen from the record it appears that the dispute raised by the appellant is purely civil in nature and the learned single Judge has rightly given liberty to the appellant to make proper application in CCCA.No. 257 of 2005, which is pending final adjudication before the II-Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and seek appropriate reliefs. We do not see any reason to interfere with the order impugned in the writ appeal. The writ appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. 9. In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR 16-6-2009. I s L