IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25021 of 2007 Between: P.V. Ramanaiah … Petitioner AND The Eastern Power Distribution Company Ltd., Visakhapatnam, rep., by its Superintendent Engineer (O), Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri G. Ravi Mohan Counsel for respondents 1&2: Sri O. Manohar Reddy Standing Counsel Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri N. Ranga Reddy This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25021 of 2007 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare proceedings dated 25.06.2007 of respondent No.2, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner also sought for a direction to release four numbers of single phase and two numbers of three phase connections to him. Heard Sri G. Ravi Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Ranga Reddy for respondent No.3. The only grievance of the petitioner as expressed in his affidavit and projected by his counsel, at the hearing, is that though electrical supply for releasing the abovementioned connections was sanctioned by the Assistant Engineer, Aseelmetta, on 29.05.2007, subsequently by his letter dated 25.06.2007 he declined to release the supply on the ground that the height of the building is more than ten metres. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while measuring the height of the building, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have taken into consideration the construction made underneath the overhead tank. The petitioner therefore realizeing that if the said construction is removed, the height of the building will fall below ten metres, which would obviate him to get occupancy certificate from respondent No.3 as a sine qua non for release of power supply, removed the said construction which brought down the height of the building to below ten metres. Sri O. Manohar Reddy, submitted that since the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner pertains to the subsequent event, the same is not in his knowledge. Sri N. Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.3 stated that the petitioner constructed the building with deviations and hence he is not entitled to occupancy certificate. The question whether the petitioner is required to obtain and produce the occupancy certificate for release of power supply depends upon the actual height of the building. If, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after the removal of the structure underneath the overhead tank, the height of the building falls below ten metres, all the learned counsel appearing for the parties agreed that there is no need for the petitioner to produce the occupancy certificate for the purpose of release of power supply. In this view of the matter, the Assistant Engineer, Aseelmetta, of the Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited, Visakhapatnam, is directed to measure the building as it now exists. If he finds that the height of the building is below ten metres, he shall release the power supply without insisting on production of occupancy certificate by the petitioner, subject to the petitioner complying with all other requirements. If on the contrary, the height of the building is found above ten metres, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to apply for and produce the occupancy certificate issued by respondent No.3 for release of power supply. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.32583 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 03.04.2008 ES