% IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 15520 OF 2013 Between: Smt. CH.Kamalamma, W/o. Gangaraju, Aged about 66 years Housewife, R/o. H.No.14-4-24/3, Bhanoji Thota, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. Occ: ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited, rep. by its Divisional Engineer, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. 2. Assistant Divisional Engineer, Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a direction, order or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in disconnecting the power supply to the House of petitioner without prior notice and without assigning any reasons as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Principles of Natural Justice besides contrary to the Provisions of Indian Electricity Act and consequently direct the respondents to restore the power supply to the Service Connection No. 11132200GW 026353 of the petitioner's House bearing Door No.14-4-24/3, Bhanoji thota. Ward No.50, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP. NO: 18809 OF 2013) 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 direct the respondents to restore the power supply to the Service Connection No. 11132200GW 026353 of the petitioner's House bearing Door No.14-4-24/3, Bhanoji thota. Ward No.50, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI V V SATISH Counsel for the Respondents: SRI T SRIRAM The Court made the following: ORDER ' ^ APHC010171012025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 15520/2013 Between: Ch. Kamalarnma, Visakhapatnam ...PETITIONER AND Divisional Engineer APEPDCL Visakhapatnam Ano and ...RESPONDENT( S) Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.VVSATISH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P ANAND SESHU (SC FOR APEPDCL) The Court made the following ORDER: Heard Ms. Priyanka, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T. Sri Ram, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2. The above writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in disconnecting the power supply to service connection No.11132200GW 263F'^ given to the petitioner’s house bearing door No. 14-4-24/3, Bhanoji Thota, Ward No.50, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The averments, in brief, are that the petitioner purchased the plot from Bhanojirao under patta No.381 dated 08.12.1968 and thereafter the petitioner raised a thatched house and a petty shop. The petitioner was assigned house No. 14-4-24/3. The respondents, in pursuance of the application made by the "petitioner, released electricity vide service connection No.11132200GW 26353. The petitioner has been paying the electricity bill regularly. When the 3. Page 2 of 4 municipal authorities intended to demolish the petitioner’s house, the petitioner filed W.P.No.15288 of 2013. While the matter stood thus, respondent No.2 disconnected the power supply to the above service connection, without issuing any notice. Hence, the writ petition. An interim order was granted on 03.06.2013 to restore the power supply to service connection No. 11132200GV'\/ 26353 assigned to the petitioner’s house bearing D.No.14-4-24/3. 4. A counter affidavit was filed by respondent No.2. It was contended that the office of the Tahsildar, Gajuwaka, issued a letter stating that the land shown by the applicant in survey No.83 is classified as ‘No Mand Land’ (i.e. Government land) and requested respondent No.2 to cancel the subject service connection. Accordingly, the service connection was disconnected on 01.06.2013. The petitioner has not submitted any registered document of the subject property, except the house tax. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. ■6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the averments in the affidavit, would contend that respondent No.2 failed to adhere to the principles of natural justice before disconnecting the power supply. Respondent No.2, having released tne power supply to the petitioner’s house, ought not to have disconnected the power supply, without issuing any proceedings. Learned standing counsel would submit that power was disconnected on the instructions of the Tahsildar, Gajuwaka. 7. It is a settled principle of law that electricity is a basic amenity, w^"ich a person cannot be deprived of. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in Dilip (Dead) Through Lrs. v. Satish and Others^ while considering disconnection of power supply to a tenant, observed as follows: 8. ^ 2022 see Online sc 810 N “It is now well settled proposition of law that electricity is a basic amenity of which a person cannot be deprived. Electricity cannot be declined to a tenant on the ground of failure/refusal of the landlord to issue no objection certificate. All that the electricity supply authority is required to examine is whether the applicant for electricity connection is in occupation of the premises in question.” 9. In the case at hand as seen from the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2, power was disconnected without issuing any notice to the petitioner, merely based on the letter addressed by the Taiisildar. Thus, the procedure adhered to by respondent No.2 in disconnecting the power supply is illegal and arbitrary. However, in pursuance of the interim order, power was restored to the petitioner, and the petitioner has been enjoying the power supply. At the hearing, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, on instructions subm itted that power was again disconnected on 08.11.2024, due to payment of the bills. It, being a subsequent event, this Court is not going into that aspect. 10. non- Given the submission that power is restored in pursuance of the interim order, no further orders are required in this writ petition. 11. 12. Hence, this writ petition is closed. No costs. This order will not preclude the petitioner to get the power restored by making the payments. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K.KASI RAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. One CC to Sri V V Satish Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri T Sriram, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri P Anand Seshu, SC for APEPDCL, A Thri^Q o Advocate [OPUC] HIGH COURT DATED;05/05/2025 ORDER WP.No.15520 of 2013 CLOSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS