IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8033 of 2010 Between: Sri Pydi Chiranjeevulu … Petitioner And The Eastern Power Distribution Co., of A.P. Ltd., Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu Counsel for the respondents: Sri O. Manohar Reddy This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8033 of 2010 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in disconnecting the power supply to the petitioner’s service connection bearing SE No.49 of Lakumdeddi Village, Kotabommali Mandal, Srikakulam District, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner is running a small non-trading rice mill in the abovementioned village in Srikakulam District. After following an inspection of the petitioner’s premises, final assessment order was made for the alleged pilferage of energy for a sum of Rs.3,57,103/-. Questioning the said assessment order, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.27152 of 2005. Considering the fact that the petitioner has already deposited a sum of Rs.29,758/-, this Court directed him to pay the balance amount of Rs.20,242/- . This Court further directed that if the petitioner pays the said amount, the appellate authority may decide the matter independently without in any manner being influenced by the observations contained in the order and pending the appeal, there shall not be any disconnection of power supply to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, in pursuance of the said order, he filed appeal dated 11.02.2007 before respondent No.2. When respondent No.4 sought to insist on payment of the balance amount on the ground that appeal was not filed, the petitioner addressed letter dated 03.12.2009 to respondent No.4 stating that appeal dated 11.02.2007 was filed before respondent No.2. Inspite of the said communication, the power supply was disconnected by respondent No.4 on 27.03.2010. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. At the admission stage, the learned Standing counsel accepted notice on behalf of the respondents and reported to the Court, on instructions, that the appeal stated to have been filed by the petitioner is not on record of respondent No.2. It is not possible for this Court to give a finding whether the petitioner filed an appeal or not. However, to avoid further controversy, I deem it appropriate that the petitioner files a fresh appeal before respondent No.2 within a period of two weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed, respondent No.2 shall entertain and dispose of the same without raising any objection on the limitation. In view of the abovementioned order of this Court, whereby the respondents are directed not to disconnect the power supply till the disposal of the appeal on the petitioner paying a sum of Rs.50,000/- in all and also having regard to the admitted fact that the petitioner made such payment, the respondents shall restore the power supply to the petitioner’s unit forthwith, pending appeal before respondent No.2. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to file an appeal within the abovementioned stipulated time, the respondents shall be free to take appropriate action in accordance with law. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.10344 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 15.04.2010 ES Note:- Issue CC by 19.04.2010. B/o. ES