APHC010086352026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] THURSDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION NO: 4740/2026 Between: 1. SILARAPU RAJA RAO, S/O S KANTHA RAO AGED 45 YEARS OCC AGRICULTURIST R/O H NO 4-117 MADIGA GUDEM NEW COLONY LINGAPALEM MANDAL T CH R PALEM WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT NOW ELURU DISTRICT 534462 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY ENERGY DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI GUNTUR DISTRICT 522238. 2. THE APEPDCL REP BY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OPERATIONS, ELUM 534001. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER OPERATION, APEPDCE RANGAPURAM, RANGAPURAM MANDAL ELURU DISTRICT - 533343 4. THE THASILDAR EINGAPALAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT NOW ELURU DISTRICT 534462 5. SRI LAKKAPAMU RAMESH, S/O SUNDARAM AGED MAJOR OCC AGRICULTURIST R/O T CH R PALEM WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT NOW ELURU DISTRICT 534462 ...RESPONDENT(S): NJS,J W.P No.4740 of 2026 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CH SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ENERGY 2. GP FOR REVENUE NJS,J W.P No.4740 of 2026 3 The Court made the following Order: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner appearing through online. Also heard Mr. T Sanjeeva Rao, learned counsel representing the respondent No.4 and Ms. Aishwarya Chowdary, learned Junior Standing Counsel for A.P.E.P.D.C.L. representing the respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. As this Court is not inclined to examine the matter on merits, in detail, notice to the respondent No.5 is deemed not necessary. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner while drawing the attention of this Court to the impugned notice dated 07.02.2026 (Ex.P1) issued by the respondent No.3 inter alia submits that the same is not sustainable in law inasmuch as there is no reference to the orders stated to have been passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer i.e., respondent No.4 or the higher officials of respondent No.3. The only allegation made against the petitioner is that the petitioner dug the bore well contrary to the regulations and therefore, agricultural service connection bearing No.1516834121001439 will be disconnected within fifteen (15) days. He submits that in fact, pursuant to the notice dated 17.12.2025 of the respondent No.4, the petitioner as also unofficial respondent attended the office of the respondent No.4 and petitioner submitted the relevant documents i.e., permission granted for digging of the bore well in the petitioner’s agricultural lands. He submits that the respondent No.4 has not passed any order and under the said circumstances, the impugned notice which is in fact in the nature of an order is not only unjust NJS,J W.P No.4740 of 2026 4 and arbitrary, but also violative of principles of natural justice. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel seeks to allow the writ petition. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the respondent No.3 sought to justify the issuance of the impugned proceedings by referring to the communication dated 01.11.2025 of the District Ground Water Officer addressed to the respondent No.4. 5. It appears that pursuant to the said communication, some action was initiated against the petitioner and the unofficial respondent. Further, as seen from the communication dated 05.01.2025 addressed by the respondent No.4 to the respondent No.3, though the petitioner as also the respondent No.5 attended his office pursuant to the notice dated 17.12.2025, on the basis of the communication dated 01.11.2025 referred to above, a request was made to disconnect the power supply to the bore wells of the petitioner as well as the respondent No.5. However, no order appears to have been passed pursuant to the notice dated 17.12. 2025 referred to supra, nor a copy of any such order was placed before this Court. 6. Under the said circumstances, action of the respondent No.3 in issuing impugned proceedings intimating the petitioner that the power supply to the service connection No.1516834121001439 would be disconnected, in the considered opinion of this Court is not sustainable. NJS,J W.P No.4740 of 2026 5 7. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the impugned letter/notice dated 07.02.2026 is declared as illegal and the same is set aside. 8. However, this order will not preclude the respondent No.4 to pass appropriate order pursuant to the notices issued to the petitioner and the respondent No.5 by conducting an independent enquiry and affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and respondent No.5, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. 9. Needless to observe that depending upon the orders that may be passed by the respondent No.4, the respondent No.3 may take further action in the matter, if so warrants. 10. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Date:19.02.2026 Ksj