IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.9873 OF 2005 BETWEEN: N. Ramachandra Rao … PETITIONER AND The Engineer Incharge and another ...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.9873 OF 2005 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring action of the respondents herein in refusing to release new electricity service connection to the petitioner’s premises vide Letter No.ADE/CSC/VC/VSP/EPDCL/D.No.13035/05, dated 11.02.2005, issued by the first respondent, as arbitrary and illegal and consequently, to direct the respondents to forthwith release new electricity service connection to the petitioner’s premises bearing Door No.29-6-25, situated at Amaravathi Hotel Lane, Daba Gardens, Visakhapatnam. The petitioner along with his brothers purchased premises bearing Door No.29-6-25, situated at Amaravathi Hotel Lane, Daba Gardens, Visakhapatnam, for valid consideration under registered Agreement to sell – cum – General Power of Attorney, dated 08.04.2004. They took vacant possession of the same and dismantled the said premises to construct independent houses. At the time of dismantling the said premises, the petitioner made an application, dated 09.02.2005, to the first respondent requesting him to accept the surrender of existing electricity service connection and issue fresh electricity service connection to the said premises. By order, dated 11.02.2005, the first respondent refused to accept the same on the ground that there are certain arrears of electricity charges payable on the said connection and unless and until the arrears are paid, no new electricity service connection to the said premises would be given. The impugned notice, dated 11.02.2005, simply reads that “You have applied for 1 No. New Service Connection in the above reference. The service could not be released due to the reason that 1 No. UDC Service is existing in the same premises with S.C.No.100923/1325.” According to the petitioner, since he has purchased the premises on 08.04.2004 and the arrears of electricity charges claimed on the existing electricity service connection are relating to the period prior to the date of purchase of the premises by the petitioner, he is not liable to pay any such arrears on the existing electricity service connection. This argument advanced by the petitioner cannot be sustained. When the petitioner purchased the said premises and there was an existing electricity service connection to the said premises, unless and until, if any arrears of electricity charges are due and such dues are not cleared, the petitioner is not entitled for release of a new electricity service connection to the said premises. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being a new owner, he cannot be made liable for the arrears payable, even if there are one such payable on the existing electricity service connection, cannot be countenanced. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ C.V. RAMULU, J November 24, 2010 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.9873 of 2005 November 24, 2010