THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 12922 OF 2010 Dated 9th June, 2010 Between: Kancherla Sambamurthy …Petitioner And The Director (E-Seva), A.P. Online Service and three others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri B.P.Raju Counsel for the respondents: Sri O.Manohar Reddy The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in disconnecting the online service to collect electricity charges as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri B.P.Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. The petitioner pleaded that in pursuance of a Scheme introduced by the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Ms.No.13 dated 10.01.2003 for setting up rural service delivery points through conversion of STD/PCOs located in semi urban and rural areas in the State and for effective implementation of the said scheme, a steering committee was constituted at District level. The petitioner pleaded that his application for conversion of STD into delivery point under the abovementioned scheme was accepted and he was accordingly permitted to operate online service to collect electricity charges of the consumers of the Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited in Vanapalli Village, Kothapet Mandal, East Godavari District. The petitioner filed the present writ petition feeling aggrieved by disconnection of the said online service by respondent No.3 on 10.05.2006. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court allowed a similar writ petition, namely; W.P.No.25864 of 2007 filed by a similarly situated person on the short ground that termination of online service was not preceded by a notice. In my opinion, the writ petition suffers from inordinate delay and uncondonable laches. The petitioner has not offered any explanation, whatsoever, for remaining quiet for more than four years after the alleged disconnection of online service. It is not even his pleaded case that he made representations to any of the authorities during these four years. The petitioner failed to explain the reason for his not approaching this Court earlier when a similarly situated person filed a writ petition in the year 2007. The law is well settled that this Court will not extend its discretionary jurisdiction in favour of persons who sleepover their rights for unduly long periods and suddenly wake up to espouse their stale grievances (State of M.P v. Bhailal Bhai[1]; Trilokchand and Motichand v.M.B.Munshi[2]; Rabindranath v. Union of India[3]; Ashok Kumar Mishra and another v.Collector, Raipur and others[4] and City and Industrial Development Corporation v.Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala and others[5]). For the abovementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP Nos.16276 and 16277 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 9th June, 2010 vrn [1] AIR 1964 SC 1006 [2] (1969) 1 SCC 110 [3] AIR 1970 SC 470 [4] AIR 1980 SC 112 [5] (2009) 1 SCC 168