1 APHC010123392015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] THURSDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 39010/2015 Between: 1. RELLU JAYABABU, S/O KRIHSNA ARJUN RAO, HINDU, AGRICULTURE, AGED 36 YEARS, R/O KULLA VILLAGE, K.GANGAVARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, HYDERABAD. 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER OPERATION/APCPDCL, RAJAHMUNDRY. 3. THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER OPERATION/APCPDCL, RAMACHANDRAPURAM. EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. THE ASSISTANT DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, OPERATION/APCPDCL, RAMACHANDRAPURAM. EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 5. THE ASSISTANT ACCOUNTS OFFICER E R O, RAMACHANDRAPURAM. EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 6. CHITTURI NAGAVALI, W/O RAVIKUMAR, HINDU, R/O KULLA VILLAGE, K.GANGAVARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P RAJESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 2 1. V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL) 2. GP FOR ENERGY (AP) The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri Y. Nagendra, learned Counsel representing Sri V.V. Sathish, learned Standing Counsel for APEPDCL. 2. The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned Order dated 27.11.2015 (Ex.P.1). It transpires that the impugned Proceeding relates to a Notice issued as regards the alleged theft of electricity by the Writ Petitioner. Vide Interim Order dated 30.11.2015 in W.P.M.P.No.50266 of 2015, the Writ Petitioner has paid 50% of the demanded amount and had been enjoying the power connection till date. 3. There is no representation on behalf of the Writ Petitioner. However, having regard to the fact that this Writ Petition is of the year 2015, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping it pending. 4. Counter Affidavit filed by Respondent No.4 dated 22.03.2018 is on record. This Court has considered the content of paras 4 to 8 of the Counter Affidavit filed by the Assistant Divisional Engineer (Respondent No.4). Paras 7 and 8 are usefully extracted hereunder: “7. It is submitted that the averments mentioned in the affidavit at para 7, the 2nd respondent i.e., Superintendent Engineer, Operation, Rajahmundry has not issued any notice to the consumer; the allegations raised by the petitioner on the 2ndrespondent are baseless. The consumer was utilizing Theft of Electricity to his Prawn Culture and the same was noticed by the Divisional Engineer DPE wing and the 4threspondent issued Provisional Assessments Notice based on the notice issued by the Divisional Engineer, DPE wing. The documentary evidence and Physical verification would prove that the petitioner committed theft of energy. 3 8. It is submitted that the 4threspondent i.e., the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation, Ramachandrapuram has issued a Provisional Assessment notice and requested the consumer to pay the 50% charges of case amount initially in addition to the Compounding amount. But the consumer has failed to do the same and then the Asst Engineer, Operation; Kapileswarapuram has disconnected the power supply to the consumer under Section 135 of Electricity Act 2003. After payment of 50% charges by the consumer, the service will be reconnected.” 5. The above extract would clearly indicate that the Writ Petitioner was indulging in the activity of theft of electricity for his Prawn Culture and the same was noticed by the Divisional Engineer, DPE Wing. 6. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that on account of the alleged charge of theft against the Petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the Writ Petitioner does not deserve any indulgence from this Court. Writ Petition is dismissed as devoid of any merit. No order as to costs. 7. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt:08.01.2026 Vns