IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 15288 of 2008 Between: B. Subrahmanya Sharma, S/o. Late Lakshminarasimha Sharma, R/o. D.No. 7-61 & 62, Apparao Street, Madanapalle Town and Post, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P. Transco, Rep by Deputy Engineer, Madanapalli, Chittoor District. 2 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Municipal Commissioner, Madanapalle Municipality, Madanapalli, Chittoor District. .....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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the representation dt. 08-7-2008 made by the petitioner is illegal, improper, unjust and contrary and further direct the 1st respondent not to erect the electric heavy load transformer in front of the house bearing No. 7-61 and 62 situated in Apparao Street, Madanapalle, Chittoor District and pass such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri O. Manohar Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri S.I.NEWTON The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 15288 of 2008 ORDER: The writ petition is misconceived. Petitioner claims that the 1st respondent is erecting a transformer in the property in Apparao Street, Madanapalle Town, Chittoor District, which is claimed to belong to the petitioner and that on enquiries, the petitioner leant that the municipal authorities had accorded permission to the 1st respondent to construct the structures for erecting a transformer. The petitioner submitted a representation to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanaplle as also the respondents herein objecting to the construction of a transformer in what is claimed to be the vacant land in front of the petitioner’s house. As the 1st respondent is proceeding with the erection of the transformer, the writ petition is filed. If the petitioner’s grievance is that the 1st respondent is encroaching into his property without lawful authority, the petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of seeking injunctive relief before the Civil court of competent jurisdiction since the respondents herein and in particular, the 1st respondent is not immune to such judicial process. In view of the availability of an alternative, effective and proximal remedy, this court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the appropriate alternative remedy. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J DATE: 16th July, 2008 Pnb