THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 10632 OF 2010 Dated 30th April, 2010 Between: Bora Durga Reddy …Petitioner And The Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd And three others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Ch.Ravinder 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 the respondents in refusing to grant additional service connections to the premises of the petitioner bearing No.38-40-43, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is in occupation of the abovementioned premises claiming to be its owner. One person by name Bora Ramachander Reddy filed O.S.No.159 of 2007 against the petitioner and another person by name B.Tata Rao in the Court of II-Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. In the said suit, he filed I.A.No.332 of 2007 for an injunction restraining the defendants therein from alienating the property in question to third parties. After granting an order of status quo, the civil Court disposed of the said I.A with the finding that the plaintiff in the suit claimed only 1/4th share in the three-storied building and that it would be appropriate if the defendants therein including the petitioner herein are restrained from alienating the property to third parties. The petitioner approached the respondents for release of new service connections to the said premises. On the basis of the purported legal opinion of the legal adviser, the Additional Assistant Engineer, Operation Circle of respondent No.1-Corporation declined to release new service connections on the ground that the order of status quo granted by the civil Court is continuing. On a further request made by the petitioner; the same view was reiterated by the Officer by letter dated 26.03.2010. In my opinion, the respondents are not justified in withholding releasing of new service connections merely on account of the orders passed by the civil Court as noted above. The said order of the Civil Court was confined to the extent of restraining the petitioner from alienating the property in question. The right of the petitioner to enjoy the property without any fetters is in no way restricted by the said order. Electricity being an essential amenity, the respondents cannot deny such an amenity on the purported ground of the order passed by the civil Court. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner is not in lawful possession of the property. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for release of three new service connections without reference to the orders of the civil Court subject to the petitioner complying with all the legal requirements within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 30th April, 2010 vrn