APHC010140812025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 7218/2025 Between: Jeeripothula Appa Rao and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. PILLI SUNDEEP Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. T DIWAKAR REDDY 2. GP FOR ENERGY The Court made the following ORDER: Heard Sri P.Sundeep, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for 1st respondent, Sri V.V.Satish, learned standing counsel for respondents 2 to 5, and Sri T.Diwakar Reddy, learned counsel for 6th respondent. 2. The above writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondents 2 to 5 in shifting the transformer from one place to another place in a residential area, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 2 3. The petitioners, residents of Sriram Nagar colony, Lankalapalem, Paravada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, filed the above writ petition. The averments in the affidavit succinctly thus: (a) The 6th respondent purchased land in Sy.No.179-1 and made an application to shift the transformer SS18 to a location closer to the petitioners’ houses. The proposed location is a densely populated residential area. On coming to know about the application made by the 6th respondent requesting the authorities to shift the transformer, the petitioners submitted objections on 04.05.2024. Later, the 6th respondent made an application before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, APEPDCL, Visakhapatnam and the same is numbered as C.G.No.168 of 2024. (b) The Redressal Forum, by order dated 08.08.2024 permitted for shifting of the transformer and directed the authorities to follow the procedure. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the averments made in the affidavit, would further contend that without considering the objections of the petitioners, the Redressal Forum passed the order. Learned counsel would further contend that the shifting of a transformer close to the petitioners' houses will prejudice the interest of the petitioners. 5. When the writ petition was listed on 20.03.2025, this Court directed the learned standing counsel to file a rough sketch indicating the existence of the transformer and the proposed site for the shifting of the transformer. 6. Learned standing counsel submitted a copy of the rough sketch, and the same was also handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioners. 7. As seen from the material available on record, the 6th respondent purchased land admeasuring 221.67 Sq.yards in Sy.No.179-1B under a registered document No.3828/2022. A transformer has existed on the North- East corner of the said plot. The 6th respondent requested the authorities to shift the transformer from North-East corner to South-West corner of the land 3 at his expense. He also approached the authorities for the shifting of the transformer. The authorities visited the premises. The owners residing right side of the proposed transformer objected to the shifting. The authorities of APEPDCL issued a notice for payment of Rs.1,19,634/- to shift the transformer. Accordingly, the 6th respondent paid the amount. The Deputy Executive Engineer, APEPDCL, Lankelapalem has entrusted the work for the shifting of the transformer. The petitioners 1 and 2 raised objections and quarreled with the staff, and hence, the authorities closed the file. 8. The 6th respondent thereafter approached the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Visakhapatnam constituted under Section 42 of the Act. The said Forum, after issuance of notices to the petitioners 1 and 2 passed the order dated 30.12.2024 directing the Superintending Engineer/ Operation/Anakapalli to implement the orders in CG.No.168/2024, dated 08.08.2024 by taking necessary police aid and further observed to take necessary departmental action against R1 to R3 – officials of the Department. 9. A perusal of the rough sketch would manifest that the 6th respondent requested the authorities to shift the transformer from North-East to South- West of his land. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the transformer is 160 KV and the width of the road is 27 meters, and if the same is installed at a new location, it will impede the free flow of traffic, being a disputed question of fact, this court while exercising jurisdiction under Art 226 of the Constitution of India will not go into. The people in the vicinity are getting power supply through the said transformer. 10. The authorities are now shifting the transformer in compliance with the order passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum in CG.No.168/2024. If the petitioners are aggrieved, they have to file an appeal against the order passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum to the Electricity Ombudsman under Section 42(6) of the Electricity Act, 2003. Without availing an alternative remedy, the petitioners approached this Court. As noted supra, the petitioners did not challenge the proceedings of the 4 Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum except for contending that the shifting of the transformer is illegal and arbitrary. Unless the petitioners demonstrate infringement of fundamental rights, in the considered opinion of this court, the writ petition itself is not maintainable. 11. The discussion made supra would indicate that the shifting of the transformer, is in pursuance of the order dated 08.12.2024 in CG No.168/2024. In fact, the Redressal Forum also directed the officials to follow the procedure under Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Works of Licensees Rules, 2007. 12. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 24.03.2025 KA 5 194 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 7218/2025 Date: 24.03.2025 KA