Syed Basheed Basha, @ Shiraj v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
WP/16640/2014 · 2026-02-24
Ninala Jayasurya
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 16767 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 16767 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010071002014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION NO: 16640/2014 Between:
1. SYED BASHEED BASHA, @ SHIRAJ,, S/O.SYED JAFER SAHEB, MUSLIM, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, OCC: PETTY BUSINESS, R/O.DOOR NO.11-261, READING ROOM STREET, MADANAPALLY TOWN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT
...PETITIONER AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENERGY, FORESTS, ENVIRONMENT, SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD.
2. THE A P SOUTHEM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3. THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, A.P.SOUTHEM POWER DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD., MADANAPALLY, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
2
NJS,J
W.P.NO.16640 OF 2014 Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA SC FOR APSPDCL
2. GP FOR FORESTS (AP)
3. P VINOD KUMAR The Court made the following:
3
NJS,J
W.P.NO.16640 OF 2014
ORDER:-
The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is that the 3rd respondent is not considering the representation dated 28.04.2014 of the petitioner for removing the illegal power connections to the petty shops located in the petitioner’s land in Sy.No.173 of Madanapally Revenue Village, in an extent of Ac.0- 97 cents.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
3. At the time of considering the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, it is noted that a learned Judge vide order dated 03.07.2014, directed the respondents to consider the representation dated 28.04.2014.
4. In the light of the said order, and keeping in view the afflux of time, this Court deems it not necessary to examine the matter in detail.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. However, this order would not preclude the petitioner to seek recourse to law if the cause of action survives. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Date:25.02.2026 LSP