IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Appeal No. 744 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 19/06/2008 in Writ Petition No. 12720 of 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Seelam Ramesh Babu, S/o. Late Nooka Raju, Hindu, M/s Sai Prakash Industries (closed), R/o. D.No.77-9-27, Gandhipuram- 3, Rajamundry Post, E.G.District. ... APPELLANT AND 1) The A.P Eastern Power Distribution Company Ltd., Visakhapatnam, rep by its Asst. Divisional Engineer, Operation, Town-1, sub Division, Jampeta Junction, Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry-[PO] E.G.District. 533 103 2) The Divisional Engineer, Operation, APEPDCL,Vidyut, Sakhabhavan, Godavaribund, Rajahmundry,[PO], E.G.District- 533 101 3) The Chairman cum Managing Director, APEPDCL, Corporate Office, Seetamma Dhara, Visakhapatnam[PO] & District. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.P.NARASIMHA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: O.MANOHAR REDDY (SC FOR APTRANSCO) The Court made the following: Judgment: (Per Shri Anil R. Dave, Chief Justice) 1. Being aggrieved by an order dated 19.6.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.12720 of 2008, this appeal has been filed by the original petitioner. 2. The appellant – petitioner is having an electricity connection bearing No.12471, Category-III, Thadithota, D3 Section, Rajahmundry. As he has not paid the amount payable in respect of the said connection, electricity supply for another connection has also been disconnected. 3. After hearing the learned advocates, the learned Single Judge has rejected the petition on the ground that admittedly the amount in respect of Service Connection No.12471 was not paid and as per the terms and conditions of supply, it was open to the supplier to disconnect the electricity supply to all or any of the other services of the consumer though such services be distinct and are governed by separate agreements and though no default occurred in respect thereof. 4. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant – petitioner has submitted that the appellant has filed a suit, which had been dismissed, against which an appeal had been filed and the same is pending. According to him, in view of the pendency of the appeal, it cannot be said that the amount is due and payable. In support of the above contention, the learned advocate relied upon the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Orissa High Court in Orissa Fibre v. Orissa S.E. Board[1]. 5. Upon a query being put to him whether any ad-interim injunction – interim order has been passed in his favour in the appeal, he has submitted that no interim relief of any type has been granted by the appellate Court. 6. In view of the above fact, it is clear that in respect of Service Connection No.12471, the appellant was liable to make payment to the supplier and, therefore, it cannot be said that the electricity supply to the other service connection was disconnected for unjustifiable reason. In our opinion, the disconnection to the other service connection was in accordance with the terms and conditions of supply. 7. As regards the judgment relied upon by the learned advocate i n Orissa Fibre v. Orissa S.E. Board (supra), in our opinion, the law laid down in the said judgment would not render assistance to the appellant. In the instant case, the amount has already become due and payable in respect of Service Connection No.12471. 8. In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ July 28, 2008 R. SUBHASH REDDY, J svs ........REGISTRAR To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA {VSMI} [1] AIR 1973 Orissa 104 (DB)