APHC010089342025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No: 4606 of Between: 1. SMT.GANTA LAKSHMI SUJATHA, W/o.SRIRAMA CHANDRA RAO(LATE), D.No. 27 GAJUWAKA, VISHAKAPATNAM DISTRICT. 1. THE ANDHRA PRADESH EASTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED, CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR 2. CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM, REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, A.P.E.P.D.C.L, VISHAKAPATNAM. 3. THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OPERATION, APEPDCL, VADLAPUDI, VISHAKAPATN 4. THE DY.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OPERATION, APEPDCL, AUTONAGAR, VISHAKAPATNAM DISTRICT. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OPERATION, APEPDCL, VISHAKAPATNAM ZONE 6. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, OPERATION, APEPDCL, VISHAKAPATNAM, VISHAKAPATNAM DISTRICT. 7. MOHAMMAD MUSHA, S/O SHAIK MISKIN, D.N FAKIRTEKYA, GAJUWAKA. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No: 4606 of 2025 SMT.GANTA LAKSHMI SUJATHA, W/o.SRIRAMA CHANDRA RAO(LATE), D.No. 27-3-142/1, OFFICIAL COLONY, SRINAGAR, GAJUWAKA, VISHAKAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND THE ANDHRA PRADESH EASTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR. CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM, REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, A.P.E.P.D.C.L, VISHAKAPATNAM. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OPERATION, APEPDCL, VADLAPUDI, VISHAKAPATNAM DISTRICT. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OPERATION, APEPDCL, AUTONAGAR, VISHAKAPATNAM DISTRICT. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OPERATION, APEPDCL, VISHAKAPATNAM ZONE-II, VISHAKAPATNAM DISTRICT. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, OPERATION, APEPDCL, VISHAKAPATNAM, VISHAKAPATNAM DISTRICT. MOHAMMAD MUSHA, S/O SHAIK MISKIN, D.N FAKIRTEKYA, GAJUWAKA. ...RESPONDENT(S): IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3209] TUESDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA SMT.GANTA LAKSHMI SUJATHA, W/o.SRIRAMA CHANDRA 142/1, OFFICIAL COLONY, SRINAGAR, ...PETITIONER THE ANDHRA PRADESH EASTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION REP BY ITS CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM, REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, A.P.E.P.D.C.L, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OPERATION, APEPDCL, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OPERATION, APEPDCL, THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OPERATION, APEPDCL, , VISHAKAPATNAM DISTRICT. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, OPERATION, APEPDCL, MOHAMMAD MUSHA, S/O SHAIK MISKIN, D.No.31-48-33, ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M/s.PILLIX LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Ms.TANDASA RADHA RANI 2. Mr.V.V.SATISH (SC for APEPDCL) 3. Ms.KOTHAPALLI AISHWARYA CHOWDARY 3 The Court made the following Order: The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by an Order dated 12.02.2025 passed by the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, A.P.E.P.D.C.L., Visakhapatnam in C.G.No.530 of 2024, entertaining a complaint made by respondent No.7 herein, and the directions to the Distribution Company / authorities to disconnect the service connection bearing No.K34155 immediately and dismantle the service. The petitioner herein is arrayed as respondent No.5 in C.G.No.530 of 2024. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner advanced arguments with reference to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and the earlier order dated 29.11.2018 passed by the very same Forum in C.G.No.320 of 2018. He submits that while the petitioner is taking steps to challenge the order passed by the Forum in C.G.No.530 of 2024 dated 12.02.2025 before the Vidyut Ombudsman, on 18.02.2025, the power supply to the petitioner’s service connection was disconnected. He submits that the action of the respondent-authorities in disconnecting the power supply even before expiry of 30 days period for filing appeal before the Vidyut Ombudsman, that too without giving any notice, is illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and in those circumstances, the petitioner is constrained to file the present writ petition. He also submits that pursuant to the interim orders dated 24.02.2025 of this Court, the power supply to the petitioner’s service connection is restored and the petitioner is presently 4 availing the electricity. The learned counsel further seeks to advance arguments, with reference to the merits of the case. 3. The learned counsel for the A.P.E.P.D.C.L., seeks time to file counter. 4. On the other hand, Smt.T.Radha Rani, learned counsel for the 7th respondent, inter alia, submits that the writ petition is not maintainable. While submitting that the interim orders were granted for a limited period and not extended, she submits that taking advantage of the interim orders, the petitioner is trying to raise permanent structures. She submits that in fact, the petitioner obtained electricity connection to a container and under the guise of the same, is trying to dispossess the respondents from the land situated in Survey Nos.31/1B1 and 31/1B3, which are patta lands. She also submits that in the light of the specific direction by the Forum, the disconnection to the petitioner’s service was effected and the same is in accordance with the relevant Regulations. The learned counsel also seeks to advance arguments on the merits of the case. Be that as it may. 5. This Court on a consideration of the preliminary submissions and perusal of the material on record, deems it not necessary to examine the matter in detail, more particularly, as the petitioner has a remedy of appeal before the Vidyut Ombudsman. In the present case, it is not in dispute that against the impugned order dated 12.02.2025, the petitioner has right by way of an appeal and the period prescribed for filing the appeal is 30 days. Even before the expiry of the said period, and within no time, the respondent- authorities disconnected the power supply on 18.02.2025. Such an act on the 5 part of the respondent-authorities before expiry of the statutory period for filing of appeal cannot be appreciated and if the authorities are required to implement the orders as per the directions of the Forum, within the statutory period for filing of appeal, in the considered opinion of this Court, the remedy of appeal would be rendered redundant. 6. Though no reasons are forthcoming by way of a counter-affidavit, this Court instead of keeping the writ petition pending, deems it appropriate to relegate the petitioner to the appellate authority i.e., Vidyut Ombudsman. At this juncture, it may also be relevant to mention that as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the 7th respondent, the interim order was granted for a period of four weeks and it is not extended thereafter. Further, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is availing the power supply by virtue of the interim orders granted by this Court till date, though the same is not extended by a separate order. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the same and subject to hardship, at this length of time. As the merits or otherwise of the rival contentions are required to be considered by the appellate authority, this Court deems it appropriate to relegate the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal before the Vidyut Ombudsman, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On filing of appeal, the Vidyut Ombudsman shall pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with the Law, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, as also the 7th respondent, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of filing of the appeal. Till appropriate orders are passed 6 by the Ombudsman, the power supply to the petitioner service connection shall be continued. Needless to observe that if the petitioner fails to pay any of the arrears or the regular electricity charges, the concerned authorities are at liberty to disconnect the power supply, in accordance with Law. Till the disposal of the appeal by the Vidyut Ombudsman, the petitioner shall also not undertake any constructions or change the nature of the property, in question. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, all pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA BLV Dt.20.01.2026 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA W.P. No: 4606 of 2025 Date: 20.01.2026 BLV