IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ^ PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTIQE AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAP>^I WRIT APPEAL NO: 69 OF 2025 . Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 11.12.2024 in W.P.No.29127 of 2024 on the file of the High Court. ^ Between; P. Santhamma, W/o Late. P. Sidda Reddy, Aged about 80 years. Senior Citizen, D.No.3-1-61, 4“^ cross east, Vidyanagar colony, Peruru Village, Tirupati, Tirupati District. ...APPELLANT/PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its PrI Secretary, Energy Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Superintending Engineer, APSPDCL, Tirupati, Tirupati District. 3. . The Deputy Engineer, APSPDCL, Tirupati, Tirupati District. 4. The Assistant Engineer, APSPDCL, Tirupati, Tirupati District. 5. The Assistant Accounts Officer, APSPDCL, Chandragiri mandal Tirupati, Tirupati District. ...RESPONDENTS lA NO; 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the order dt. 11.12.2024 in W.R No.29127 of 2024, pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 1S1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to provide the Certified copies of entire documents (public documents) by which name change has been effected i.e., the application made for name change and documents enclosed, pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal. ^ lA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records to the kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court from the respondents by which name change has been effected i.e., the application made for name change and documents enclosed for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court, pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI LINGALA HAZARATHAIAH _ Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR ENERGY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 5: SRI VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA, SC FOR APSPDCL The Court made the following: JUDGMENT .WJi.^0.69 of2025 1 APHC010020832025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3483] WRIT APPEAL NO: 69/2025 Between: P Santhamma ...APPELLANT AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. LINGALA HAZARATHAIAH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA SC FOR APSPDCL 2.GP FOR ENERGY CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 04.02.2025 JUDGMENT (Per Sri Justice Ravi Cheemalapati) Challenging the orders dated 11.12.2024 passed by a learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.29127 of 2024, the petitioner therein, preferred this intra court appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent. J{CJ ^ ‘RCJ M.^^Mo.69 of2025 2. Through the impugned order, the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the letter dated 20.11.2024 given by respondent no.2 stating that information and documents sought by the petitioner are not eligible for disclosure, was dismissed. 3.The facts that led to filing of this writ appeal, in brief, are that the application made by the petitioner, tenant of a premises, to the respondent APSPDCL authorities to furnish certified copies of the documents filed by owner of the premises for mutation/transfer of electricity service connection in his favour from that of his father, was rejected vide letter dated 20.11.2024 stating that the information and documents sought by the petitioner is not eligible for disclosure. Assailing the said letter dated 20.11.2024, the petitioner filed writ petition. 4. The learned single Judge, upon considering the material available on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the writ petition. Challenging the said dismissal orders this writ appeal has been preferred. 5. Heard Sri Lingala Hazarathaiah, learned counsel for the appellant/ writ petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Energy for respondents. 9fCJ^‘KCJ V.UJ^.!N'o.69 of2025 3 6. Sri Lingala Hazarathaiah, learned counsel, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit as well grounds of appeal, would contend that the certified copies of the documents sought by the appellant are public documents and denial to furnish copies by the authorities is violative of the provisions of the Right to Information Act, however, the learned single Judge failed to appreciate the facts in right perspective and erroneously dismissed the writ petition. Non furnishing of the information sought by the appellant would be violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution and therefore, the order impugned in this writ appeal has to be set aside and the authorities be directed to furnish the information sought by the appellant. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ appeal. 7. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Energy, justified the orders contending that the authorities, having satisfied with the title and possession of the petitioner's landlord based on Photostat copies of the documents furnished by him, mutated the electricity service connection in his name in place of his father. Since the respondent authorities acted upon Photostat copies of documents and since it is not an office of record, the request made by the petitioner was rightly rejected. The learned single Judge upon considering the material had rightly dismissed the writ petition. There 'KCJ ei ‘RCJ .WJl.9io.69 of2025 4 merits in the writ appeal and the same deserves dismissal. Accordingly, are no prayed to dismiss the writ appeal. 8. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 9. The record would emanate that the petitioner is a tenant and contending that her landlord was interfering with her possession and enjoyment, she filed a suit for injunction and obtained interim orders of injunction and the said suit is pending. Meanwhile, owner of the premises made an application to the respondent authorities for mutation of electricity service connection in his name and the respondent authorities conceded the said request and accordingly the electricity service connection was mutated. Having learnt the same, the petitioner made an application to the respondent authorities to furnish her the certified copies of the documents furnished by her landlord for mutating his name and the said request was rejected by the authorities. 10. It is fairly settled that certified copies cannot be issued for photostat copies of the documents. For redressal of the grievance caused due to the action of the electricity authorities, the Electricity Act, 2003 carved out a mechanism in the form of making a complaint to Consumer Grievance w lia eZ <KCJ .WA.7>fo.69 of2025 5 Reddressal Forum. The petitioner did not take any steps in that direction. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not figure out any specific provision that enables the petitioner to get information as sought by him. The learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. 11. In view of the above, there are no merits in this writ appeal that warrant interference with the order of the learned Single Judge impugned in this writ appeal. 12. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M.RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRY //TRUE COPY// OFFICER SE To, 1. One CC to Sri Lingala Hazarathaiah, Advocate [OPUC] — 2. One CC to Sri Venkata Rama Rao Kota, SC for APSPDCL[OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP for Energy, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]' 4. Three CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:04/02/2025 JUDGMENT WA.No.69 of 2025 DISMISSING THE W.A. WITHOUT COSTS