APHC010260522026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 13531/2026 Between: 1. VELUGUBANTI SWAROOPA, C/O LATE V. SATEESH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RIO D.NO. 1-L, PALLAPU VEEDHI, SRIRAMPURAM VILLAGE, PAYAKARAOPETA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, A.P. PIN. 531126. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, POWER AND ENERGY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DIST, A.P. PIN. 522238. 2. THE ANDHRA PRADESH EASTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED, REP. BY. ITS., CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, C/O 50-27-5/1, TPT COLONY, SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P. PIN. 530013. 3. THE ANDHRA PRADESH EASTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED, REP. BY. ITS., EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OPERATION, PAYAKARAOPETA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI TOWN AND DISTRICT, A.P. PIN. 531126. 4. THE ANDHRA PRADESH EASTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED, REP. BY. ITS., DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OPERATION, PAYAKARAOPETA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI TOWN AND DISTRICT, A.P. PIN. 531126. 5. THE ANDHRA PRADESH EASTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED, REP. BY. ITS., ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OPERATION, PAYAKARAOPETA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, A.P. PIN. 531126. 2 6. SMT CH SATYAVENI, W/O CH. SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RIO PALLAPU VEEDHI, SRIRAMPURAM VILLAGE, PAYAKARAOPETA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, A.P. PIN. 531126. ...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 an Order, direction, proceedings or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents no. 3 to 5 in threatening and attempting to disconnect the electricity service connection no. 113245G507001620 of the Petitioner at the behest at the respondent no. 6, despite the dismissal of C.G.No. 52 of 2026 Dt.16.03.2026 before Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, A.P.E.P.D.C.L at Visakhapatnam and despite the Petitioner being in lawful possession and enjoyment of the property in Sy.No. 15/4B with an extent of Ac. 0.40 cents situated at Srirampuram Village, Payakaraopeta Mandal, Anakapalli District under the Will Dt. 05.05.1985 as illegal, arbitrary, without any notice and authority of law, violative of the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and contrary to Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents no. 3 to 5 not to disconnect or interfere with the electricity supply/service connection no. 1132456507001620 of the Petitioner, in view of the order in C.G.No. 52 of 2026 before Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, A.P.E.P.D.C.L at Visakhapatnam and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 to direct the respondents no. 3 to 5 not to disconnect or interfere with the electricity supply/service connection no. 1132456507001620 of the Petitioner, in view of the order in C.G.No. 52 of 2026 before Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, A.P.E.P.D.C.L at Visakhapatnam, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SHAIK AFZAL MOHAMMED Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ENERGY The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 13531 of 2026 ORDER:- Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s father way back in the year 2014, obtained electricity service connection bearing No. 113245G507001620 for the subject premises, i.e., an extent of Ac.0.40 cents in Sy.No.15/4B of Srirampuram Village, Payakaraopeta Mandal, Anakapalli District (erstwhile Visakhapatnam District). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, after the demise of her father, the petitioner has been continuing in possession of the said premises and has been regularly paying the electricity consumption charges. 3. He further contends that the 6th respondent, who is acting with inimical intentions against the petitioner, filed C.G.No.52 of 2026 before the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, APEPDCL, Visakhapatnam, seeking disconnection of the electricity service connection standing in respect of the subject premises. The said Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, after hearing both parties and considering all aspects of the matter, was pleased to dismiss the said complaint vide order dated 16.03.2026. 4. He states that the 6th respondent, instead of approaching the appropriate forum, has been approaching the official respondents, and all the respondents are attempting to disconnect the electricity service connection without any legal cause. 4 5. Conversely, Ms. K. Ishwarya Chowdary, counsel representing Sri V.V. Satish, learned Standing Counsel for APEPDCL, submits that, as of now, the respondent authorities are not taking any steps to disconnect the power supply. 6. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, indisputably electricity service connection bearing No. and petitioner has been paying said electricity charges regularly. Added to that, 6th respondent filed C.G.No.52 of 2026 before the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, A.P.E.P.D.C.L., Visakhapatnam against the 2nd respondent corporation authorities and also arraying the writ petitioner as party respondents by invoking clause a(1) r/w clauses 2.4 and 2.5 of Regulation 3 of 2016 as set out by the A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission for removal of electrical connection in favour of the writ petitioner. 7. The above said Forum after hearing respective parties, pleased to dismissed the said C.G.No.52 of 2026 vide orders dated 16.03.2026, for the sake of comprehensive view the relevant paras reads as under 7) DECISION OF THE FORUM: Having considered the contentions of both parties and after hearing both parties through Video Conference/Teleconference, during the enquiry, this FORUM has passed the following Order: 8) The grievance of the complainant is dismissed as observed in para-6, however, without costs. 5 The Secretary of this FORUM is directed to inform the order of this FORUM in C.G.No.52/2016 and send the copies of this order to the respective parties, Licensee, Vidyut Ombudsman and Secretary of APERC. 8. When this Court passed a specific query about any appeal filed against the orders dated 16.03.2026 made in C.G.No.52 of 2026, he replied till now he has not received any stay orders against the same. He further asserts that despite 6th respondent without availing legal remedies with the help of 2nd respondent corporation personnel trying to disconnect the long standing electricity connection existing right from 2014 onwards. 9. In the light of above facts and circumstances coupled with the following statutory realm as well as dictum held by the APWC Court in Dilip Through Lrs v. Satish and Others1 the Apex Court observed that as held under: 9. “It is now well settled proposition of law that electricity is a basic amenity of which a person cannot be deprived. Electricity cannot be declined to a tenant on the ground of failure/refusal of the landlord to issue no objection certificate....” In B. Munirathnam vs. Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd. (Writ Petition No. 7120 of 2024, dated 26.03.2024), the Court addressed the arbitrary delay in granting an electricity connection to the petitioner and held that access to electricity, being a basic necessity, cannot be denied or kept pending without valid justification. The 12022 SCC OnLine SC 810 6 lack of authorities to communicate without giving clear reasons or deficiencies in writing was found to be violative of the principles of natural justice and fairness. Further this Hon’ble Court emphasised that administrative authorities are duty-bound to act in a transparent and reasoned manner, and any unexplained inaction offends Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. 10. Considering the above facts and circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of, with the consent of both parties, with the following directions: (i) Respondent Nos.1 to 5 are hereby directed not to disconnect the electricity service connection bearing No.113245G507001620 without following due process of law. (ii) It is needless to mention that respondent No.6 is at liberty to work out legal remedies strictly in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 07.05.2026 RMR 7 03 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.13531 of 2026 Date: 07.05.2026 RMR