APHC010048972025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 2770/2025 Between: Gubbala Ramanamma ...PETITIONER AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. THATHIREDDY ASHOK SRIVASTAVA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ENERGY 2. V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL) The Court made the following ORDER: Heard Sri T.Ashok Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Iswarya, learned junior standing counsel for respondents 2 to 4, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for 5th respondent and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Energy for 1st respondent. Notice in respect of the 6th respondent is dispensed with since no adverse order is passed affecting her rights. 2 2. The above writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondents 3 and 4 in giving the electricity connection vide service No.1164842275013913 in favour of the 6th respondent as illegal and arbitrary. 3. According to the petitioner, the 5th respondent assigned house site patta vide Patta RC.No.483125/A dated 14.10.1988 for an extent admeasuring 144 Sq.yards in Plot No.18 in Sy.No.89/P in Chinnamushidivada Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. The petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. The 5th respondent issued a certificate vide L.Dis.No.74/2017/A dated 10.05.2017 endorsing the issuance of the aforementioned patta to the petitioner. The petitioner applied for building permission on 09.11.2022 to Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (GVMC). The GVMC granted permission vide permit No.1086/5654/B/ZB/CDA/2022 dated 07.12.2022. The petitioner paid the necessary fee. 4. The petitioner filed W.P.No.9777 of 2024 against the Municipal authorities and the 6th respondent to cancel the building permission granted in favour of the 6th respondent. The said writ petition is disposed of with liberty directing the petitioner to approach competent authority under Section 450 of the HMC Act. Thereafter, the petitioner made representation to the concerned authorities. The 6th respondent, by claiming ownership dubiously, obtained service connection and hence, the petitioner made representation dated 26.12.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner made another representation dated 23.01.2025 (Ex.P.1) to the 4th respondent. However, the said representation did not evoke any response. 5. At the hearing, learned standing counsel would submit that the 4th respondent is the competent authority and will consider the representation made by the petitioner by following the general terms and conditions of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission. 3 6. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of all the counsel directing the learned 4th respondent to consider the representation dated 23.01.2025 (Ex.P.1) made by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders strictly by following the general terms and conditions of the general terms and conditions of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission. The 4th respondent shall also issue notice to the 6th respondent before taking further steps. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 06.03.2025 KA 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 2770/2025 Date: 06.03.2025 KA