IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1574 of 2010 Between: C.V. Subba Raju ..... Petitioner AND The Eastern Power Distribution Co., of A.P. Ltd., Visakhapatnam & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri M.S. Ramachandra Rao Counsel for respondents 1-3: Smt. Jyothi Eswar Gogineni Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri G. Rama Gopal The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1574 of 2010 ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in taking action for extension of power supply and releasing the same for the guard room situated in Sy.No.19/2, Patta No.1111, Ward No.23, Visakhapatnam, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to extend the power supply as per letter dated 20.03.2009 issued by respondent No.3. I have heard Sri M.S. Ramchandra Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Jyothi Eswar Gogineni, learned Standing counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri G. Rama Gopal for respondent No.4. The property bearing patta No.1111 comprised in Sy.No.19/2, Ward No.23, Visakhapatnam, is the subject matter of civil dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.4. The suit filed by the petitioner for specific performance of agreement of sale was dismissed by the trial Court. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the appellate Court. It is not in dispute that the appellate Court has granted order of injunction in favour of the petitioner against respondent No.4. In this background, the petitioner approached respondent Nos.2 and 3 for release of power supply under domestic category. Though sanction for release of power supply was given, supply has not been released on the ground that the petitioner failed to produce the documents of title over the property in question. Under condition No.8 of the terms and conditions governing power supply of respondent Nos.1 to 3, if a person, who is not the owner of the property, seeks release of power supply, he shall produce the documents to show that he is in lawful possession of the property and also execute the indemnity bond and pay the consumption charges equal to three months’ electricity charges as security. The fact that the petitioner holds an order of injunction granted by the appellate Court presupposes that he is in lawful possession of the property. Therefore, I do not find any justification for respondent Nos.1 to 3 in not releasing the power supply. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed directing respondent Nos.1 to 3 to release the power supply in pursuance of the sanction order, subject to the petitioner executing an indemnity bond and paying the security deposit, as envisaged under the terms and conditions. It is, however, made clear that release of power supply shall be subject to the result of the civil dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.4. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP No.2092 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 01.02.2011 ES