IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10152 of 2007 Between: Kothuru Mallanna S/o Bheemappa R/o Kariganipalli Village, Kunduripi Mandal, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Tahsildar (MRO) , Kundurpi Mandal, Ananthapur District. 2 The Assistant Divisional Engineer, AP Transco., Kunduripi Mandla, Ananthapur district. 3 The District Collector, Ananthapur District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents:AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner sought for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in disconnecting power supply to the petitioner’s bore well with service connection No.113 as illegal and arbitrary. Though several contentions have been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, it is not necessary for this Court to refer to and deal with the same in the view this Court proposes to take in the writ petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have been interfering with his bore well, which was allegedly dug in Survey No.39 of Kariganipalli Revenue Village. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.1, it is categorically asserted that the wife of the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.27105 of 2006, wherein she claimed a similar relief by contending that her husband dug a bore well over the Government land in Survey No.98 which was classified as Village site in revenue records and that on the complaint of the villagers, he was sought to be prevented from using the said bore well. It is useful to extract paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit in this context hereinbelow. “I respectfully submit that in the earlier Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner’s wife i.e. W.P.No.27105 of 2006 a detailed counter affidavit has been filed categorically stating that the petitioner’s husband (the present petitioner) has dug a Bore Well without any authority over the Government land and the land in Sy.No.98 is classified as Village site in the Revenue Records and therefore the said land is a Government land and the Villagers have complained about the dugging of the Bore by the Petitioner’s Wife and drawing water to his Agricultural Fields and there is no sufficient drinking water to meet the requirement of the Villagers the Gram Panchayat has also passed Resolution on 10.10.2006 for utilization of the Bore Well for drinking purpose by installing a Hand Pump. A petition submitted by the Villagers was forwarded by the District Collector and the Mandal Revenue Officer has conducted an enquiry on 8.11.2006 in the Village. The present Writ Petitioner also gave a statement before the Mandal Revenue Officer that he is having 11.00 Acres of land and he is using the Water from the Bore Well for his Agricultural purposes and he is also stated that the said bore was dugged in the Gram Panchayat land and no permission was accorded by the District Collector and further stated that he will not use the water from the said Bore well to his Agricultural Fields and the Water can be utilized for the Drinking purpose. After filing of the Counter the petitioner in W.P.No.27105 of 2006 who is none other than the Wife of the petitioner has withdrawn the W.P.No.27105/2006 and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 30.04.2007. Immediately, thereafter on 5.05.2007 the present writ petition is filed making similar allegations except adding the Assistant Divisional Engineer, A.P.Transco, Kundurpi Mandal, Ananthapur District as a Second Respondent and questioning the action of disconnecting of the Power Supply to the Bore Well.” Though this counter-affidavit was filed as far back as 24.07.2008, no reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner controverting the above- mentioned averments. The petitioner cannot file the present writ petition, when his wife who sought to espouse his cause failed in the writ petition filed by her earlier. The discretionary jurisdiction of this Court cannot therefore, be extended to the petitioner, who suppressed the fact of filing of the writ petition by his wife earlier and withdrawing the same after the counter-affidavit was filed by respondent No.1. On the premises as above, the writ petition is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 17th JUNE, 2009. kvni