APHC010365242023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 18998/2023 Between: Sk. Imambee ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PAMARTHI KAMESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ENERGY 2. V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL) 3. V R REDDY KOVVURI (SC FOR APCPDCL) The Court made the following ORDER: Heard Sri P.Kameswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt.Adarshita, learned counsel representing Sri V.V.Satish, learned standing counsel for respondents 2 to 6. None appeared for the 7th respondent despite service of notice. 2. The above writ petition has been filed to declare the action of respondents 2 to 6 in not taking necessary action against unauthorized electricity connection obtained by 7th respondent vide Service Connection Nos.9121410000371, 9121410000372 and 9121410000122 in respect of shell 2 house bearing D.No.7-89 in Sy.No.225-3 admeasuring Ac.0-19 cents at Kondaveedukota Village, Edlapadu Mandal, Guntur District and the communication of 4th respondent to the 3rd respondent vide Lr.No.EE/DPE- 2/GNt/F.No./D.No.227, dated 03.06.2023 (Ex.P.3), as illegal and arbitrary. 3. (a) Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner’s husband’s grandmother is the absolute owner of the house bearing D.No.7-89 (subject house). She got the property under a registered document bearing No.2362/1940 dated 09.08.1940. After her demise petitioner’s husband succeeded to the property. Petitioner’s husband died on 19.11.2002. Due to old age ailments, the petitioner has been residing at her daughter’s house at Mangalagiri, Guntur District, since 2014 and has rented the subject house to the 7th respondent. (b) The electricity authorities released the power supply connection vide Service No.9121410000122 in the name of the petitioner’s husband’s grandmother. The 7th respondent, with the help of official respondents, got the name of her husband’s grandmother and changed the service connection in the name of one Sk.Sarabee. The 7th respondent also obtained two more service connections. The petitioner approached the respondents 3 to 6 and made a representation dated 31.10.2022. The electricity authorities have not taken any action and issued proceedings vide Lr.No.GM/DPE/VJA.Enquiry/D.No.67/2023, dated 06.06.2023 (Ex.P.2). The petitioner also filed O.S.No.37 of 2019 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet for recovery of property and the same is pending. 4. Learned standing counsel would contend that the representation made by the petitioner was acted upon, and an inspection was conducted. The 4th respondent submitted a report to the 3rd respondent vide Lr.No.EE/DPE- 2/GNT/F.No./D.No.227/23, dated 03.06.2023. Learned counsel would also contend that regarding the civil dispute of the petitioner’s property, the Department is not concerned with it. 3 5. Thus, as seen from the material available on record, the complaint made by the petitioner dated 31.10.2022 was acted upon, and in fact, an inspection was conducted as seen from Ex.P.3 report. 6. As seen from Para No.7 of the affidavit, the petitioner filed O.S.No.37 of 2019, and the same is pending consideration. Ex.P.3 report would indicate an inspection conducted by the concerned authority, and the existence of meters. The grievance of the petitioner regarding the change of name etc., has been dealt with in the report submitted by the 4th respondent to the 3rd respondent. 7. No document has been produced before this court regarding service connection standing in the name of the petitioner’s predecessors in title at any point in time. Unless the petitioner demonstrates the said fact and alleges infringement, it is very difficult to adjudicate the same being a disputed question of fact. That apart, the petitioner has already filed a civil suit, and the same is pending consideration before the competent civil court. 8. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. This order will not preclude the respondent authorities from initiating any action, if required as per the law, in pursuance of the report. _______________________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J Dated 19.06.2025 KA 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 18998/2023 Dated 19.06.2025 KA