APHC010383172025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No: 19610 of Between: 1. BANDI MARTHAMMA @ D MARTHAMMA, AGED 83 YEARS, W/O. LATE BANDIPEDDASUBBARAYUDU, D.No.29 TEKKE, NANDYAL TOWN, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 1. THE ANDHRA PRADESH SOUTHERN COMPANY LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, D.NO. 19 TIRUCHANOOR ROAD, TIRUPATI 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, OPERATION, APSPDCL, KUMOOL CIRCLE, KUMOOL DISTRICT. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SUB DISTRICT. 4. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SUB NANDYAL DISTRICT. 5. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, DL NANDYAL DISTRICT. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No: 19610 of 2025 BANDI MARTHAMMA @ D MARTHAMMA, AGED 83 YEARS, W/O. LATE BANDIPEDDASUBBARAYUDU, D.No.29 TEKKE, NANDYAL TOWN, NANDYAL DISTRICT. AND THE ANDHRA PRADESH SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, D.NO. 19-13-65/A, SRINIVASAPURAM, TIRUCHANOOR ROAD, TIRUPATI - 517503. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, OPERATION, APSPDCL, KUMOOL CIRCLE, KUMOOL DISTRICT. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SUB-DIVISION, NANDYAL, NANDYAL THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SUB-DIVISION, NANDYAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, DL- SECTION, APSPDCL, NANDYAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3209] TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA BANDI MARTHAMMA @ D MARTHAMMA, AGED 83 YEARS, W/O. LATE BANDIPEDDASUBBARAYUDU, D.No.29-286, ...PETITIONER POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND 65/A, SRINIVASAPURAM, THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, OPERATION, APSPDCL, DIVISION, NANDYAL, NANDYAL DIVISION, NANDYAL, SECTION, APSPDCL, NANDYAL, 2 6. NANDYAL MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, NANDYAL,NANDYAL DISTRICT. 7. BANDIVANAJA, D/O. LATE B. C SUBBARAYUDU, H.NO.26/611, ROYAL COMPOUND, R.S.ROAD, NANDYAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Mr.THATHIREDDY ASHOK SRIVASTAVA Counsel for the Respondent(S): Mr.VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA, SC FOR APSPDCL 3 The Court made the following Order: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard learned counsel representing the respondent-APSPDCL. Despite service of notice on 05.08.2025, none entered appearance on behalf of respondent No.7 and as such she was set ex parte on 20.01.2026. 2. The petitioner, seeking to declare the action of the respondent Nos.4 and 5 in unilaterally affecting the name change in Electricity Service Connection bearing No.8431115002907 from the petitioner’s name to that of the 7th respondent, without issuing notice or affording any opportunity to the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary etc., and for consequential directions, filed the present writ petition. 3. As per the averments in the writ affidavit, the case of the petitioner in brief is that she is the wife of one Mr.B.Pedda Subbarayudu and he executed a Registered Will dated 30.12.1999 bequeathing all his movable and immovable properties to the petitioner, that he died on 22.09.2000 and the Will came into effect thereafter. As the petitioner became the absolute owner of the writ petition subject property and in possession and enjoyment of the same, she got her name mutated in the municipal records. Further, she holds electricity service connection bearing No.8431115002907 and paying the electricity charges regularly. By making false representation to the DISCOM authorities, the 7th 4 respondent un-authorizedly got changed the said electricity service connection from the petitioner’s name to that of the 7th respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, by drawing the attention to the relevant material on record including the current consumption bills issued in favour of the petitioner in respect of service connection bearing No.8431115002907 inter alia submits that the respondents 4 and 5 acted arbitrarily and in gross violation of principles of natural justice, changed the name of the petitioner in respect of the said service connection on the application stated to have been made by the 7th respondent for title transfer. He submits that before effecting name change in respect of the service connection referred to supra, that no notice was issued to the petitioner, much less, an opportunity of hearing and the stand of the respondent-DISCOM authorities that on verification of Death Certificate of the petitioner’s husband and the Family Member Certificate submitted by the 7th respondent, the name is changed, which is wholly untenable. He submits that the service connection is not in the name of the petitioner’s deceased husband, but in her name and in such circumstances, the action of the respondent-authorities in replacing the name of the petitioner, who is the holder of service connection bearing No.8431115002907 with that of the 7th respondent is not tenable. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel seeks to allow the writ petition by granting the reliefs as prayed for. 5 5. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent- DISCOM made submissions to the effect that on the earlier occasion, acceding to the request of the petitioner and considering the documents submitted by her through Mee-Seva, the name of the petitioner after the death of the Registered Consumer was entered in respect of the said service connection. He submits that the 7th respondent also adopted the very same procedure, which was in vogue at the relevant point of time and made an application for change of name in respect of service connection bearing No.8431115002907 by submitting the relevant documents i.e., the Death Certificate of Mr.Subbarayudu and Family Member Certificate and in the light of the said documents, her name is incorporated in respect of the service connection mentioned supra. He submits that the respondent-DISCOM authorities have followed the procedure before effecting the name changes and therefore, the contentions contra are not sustainable. However, in reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 7th respondent is the daughter of one Mr.B.China Subbarayudu, whereas the petitioner, holder of electricity service connection bearing No.8431115002907 is the wife of Pedda Subbarayudu, and therefore, the authorities erroneously accepted the Death Certificate and the Family Members Certificate issued with reference to the said B.China Subbarayudu. In any event, the learned counsel submits that when the Service connection bearing No.8431115002907 is in the name of the petitioner, the name of the 7th respondent cannot be incorporated without notice or opportunity to the petitioner. 6 6. This Court has considered the submissions made. 7. At the outset, it may be relevant to mention that irrespective of the right of the petitioner over the writ petition schedule property and the civil litigation stated to have been ended in favour of the petitioner (Ex.P5), the only point, in the considered opinion of this Court, that is required to be examined is whether the DISCOM authorities / respondents 4 & 5 have acted in violation of principles of natural justice before incorporating the name of the 7th respondent in place of the petitioner? 8. A perusal of the material on record i.e., the current consumption bills etc., filed along with the writ petition clearly reflects the name of the petitioner “Bandi Marthamma” in respect of the service connection bearing No.8431115002907. It is not in dispute that the current consumption charges are being paid regularly. However, according to the respondent-DISCOM authorities, the name of the 7th respondent is incorporated in place of the petitioner, in view of the documents submitted by the said respondent through Mee-Seva. There may not be any dispute that on the earlier occasion, in view of the death of the original consumer, the name in respect of the service connection bearing No.8431115002907 was changed and the petitioner’s name was incorporated. Had the service connection been in the name of B.Pedda Subbarayudu or for that matter, B.China Subba Rayudu, there may not be any lapse on the part of the DISCOM-authorities in not issuing notice to the petitioner or an opportunity of being heard before effecting 7 any changes in respect of the said service connection. However, the factual position is otherwise. The service connection bearing No.8431115002907 stands in the name of the petitioner and in such an event, the DISCOM-authorities are under an obligation in Law to issue notice to the petitioner and afford an opportunity to her before making changes / replacing the name of the petitioner with that of the 7th respondent. No material is brought to the notice of the Court to indicate that such a procedure is followed by the respondents 4 and 5-DISCOM authorities. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the same amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. 9. Though the respondents 1 to 5 in the counter-affidavit took a stand inter alia that the original service connection bearing No.8431115002907 was released in favour of the said B.China Subbarayudu, admittedly the name of the petitioner was incorporated / recorded in respect of the said service connection, whatever might be the procedure adopted by the DISCOM. Even assuming that the 7th respondent is entitled for mutation of her name in respect of the service connection referred to supra, in the absence of any notice or enquiry, the name of the petitioner cannot be removed / replaced in an arbitrary manner, without issuing any notice. Therefore, having found justification in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the action of the respondent-DISCOM authorities in changing the name of the 8 petitioner in respect of service connection bearing No.8431115002907 with that of 7th respondent, is in gross violation of principles of natural justice. 10. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed declaring that the change of petitioner’s name in respect of the service connection bearing No.8431115002907 with that of 7th respondent is not sustainable. Consequently, the respondents 3 to 5 are directed to change the service connection bearing No.8431115002907 to the name of the petitioner, within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, all pending applications shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA BLV Dt.03.02.2026 9 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA W.P. No: 19610 of 2025 Date: 03.02.2026 BLV