APHC010057502013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 33688/2013 Between: 1. YERRABALLI SAILAJA, W/O. YERRABALLI HARINATH REDDY, AGE 35 YEARS, DEC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. JANDRABAILU VILLAGE, NIMMALAPALLI MANDAL,CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE APCPDCL REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, ERRAMANZIL, VIDYUT SOUDHA, HYDERABAD. 2. THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER OPERATIONS APCPDCL, MADANAPALLI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER APCPDCL, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER APCPDCL, NIMMANAPALLI MANDAL, MADANAPALLI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 5. A SRINIVASULU NAIDU, S/O. LATE A. CHINNAPPA, R/O. JANDRABAILU, NIMMANAPALLI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 any appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.2 to 4 in not taking any action on my representation dated 10-08-2013 is illegal, 2 arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice consequently direct the respondents to remove the unauthorized electricity connection situated in Sy.No.364-3, 364-4 of Jandrabailu Village, Nimmanapalli Mandal, Chittoor District, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 41920 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 direct the respondents to remove the unauthorized electricity connection situated in Sy.No.364-3, 364-4 of Jandrabailu Village, Nimmanapalli Mandal, Chittoor District, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V R REDDY KOVVURI(SC FOR APSPDCL) 2. SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA 3. JAGARLAMUDIKOTESWARIDEVI(SC FORAPSPDCL) The Court made the following: ::ORDER:: Heard Sri K.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K.V.Rama Rao, learned Standing counsel for respondents 1 to 4, and Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned counsel for the 5th respondent. 2. The above writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondents 2 to 4 in not taking action in pursuance of the representation dated 10.08.2013 made by the petitioner to disconnect the unauthorised electricity connection in Sy.Nos.364-3 and 364-4 of Jandrabailu Village, Nimmanapalli Mandal, Chittoor District, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the absolute owner of an extent of Ac.0.96 cents and Ac.0.59 cents in 3 Sy.Nos.364-3 and 364-4 of Jandrabailu Village, Nimmanapalli Mandal, Chittoor District. The 5th respondent dug a borewell and got an electricity service connection. The 5th respondent filed I.P.No.10 of 2007 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mandanapalli, against the 3rd respondent. The petitioner made a representation dated 10.08.2013; however, the same was not considered. 4. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 4. It was contended, inter alia, that the respondents 1 to 4 cannot adjudicate the civil dispute between the petitioner and the 5th respondent. Electricity connection was released in the name of Sri A.Balaji, son of the 5th respondent. In pursuance of the representation made by the petitioner on 10.08.2013, the same was considered and informed to the petitioner by the letter dated 09.09.2013. Sri A.Balaji, son of the 5th respondent, has been paying electricity consumption charges regularly. The 5th respondent has not obtained any agriculture connection in SF.No.364-4. 5. No reply affidavit was filed to the counter affidavit. 6. Thus, as seen from the averments in the counter affidavit, the respondent authorities considered the representation made by the petitioner and sent a reply on 09.09.2013. Since the respondent authorities considered the representation of the petitioner, the grievance of the petition in the writ petition is misconceived. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Dated: 04.07.2025 SNI 4 319 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION No.33688 OF 2013 Dated: 04.07.2025 SNI