1 APHC010486622015 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: 41666/2015 Between: 1. MEKA RAMAKRISHNA, S/O. M. KOTESWARA RAO AGED 39 YEARS, OCC: CULTIVATION R/O. K. CHIKKALA VILLAGE, NELAMURU ROAD WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE EASTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF AP LTD, REP. BY ITS CHIEF ENGINEER HYDERABAD. 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEEROPERATION, APEPDCL, ELURU, W. G. DISTRICT 3. THE ASST DIVISIONAL ENGINEER OPERATION, APEPDCL, PALAKOLU, W. G. DISTRICT. 4. THE ASST ACCOUNTS OFFICER/ERO, PALAKOLU, W. G. DISTRICT. 5. THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER/DPE, APEPDCL, RAJAHMUNDRY, E. G. DISTRICT. 6. THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER/DPE, APEPDCL, KAKINADA, E. G. DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VENKAT CHALLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL) 2 The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Heard Ms. G.S. Harshitha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Venkat Challa, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri Y. Nagendra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri V.V. Sathish, learned Standing Counsel for APEPDCL. 2. The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned Proceedings dated 19.12.2015 (Exs.P.1 & P.2). The said Proceedings would indicate that the Respondents have alleged that the Petitioner has committed an act of theft. Vide Interim Order dated 23.12.2015, this Court had directed the restoration of power supply to the Petitioner’s service connection on the condition that the Petitioner deposits 50% of the amount demanded. 3. It transpires from record that the Petitioner has deposited 50% of the amount with regard to both the connections, which is reflected in para 9 of the Counter Affidavit filed by Respondent No.3. The only ground raised by the Writ Petitioner in this Writ Petition is that the Official Respondents have visited the farm of the Petitioner without any advance Notice which is a violation of the principles of Natural Justice. Counter Affidavit filed by Respondent No.3 states that when sudden raids are made to curb theft of electricity, no advance Notice would be given and non-issuance of advance Notice for conducting sudden raids and checks would not violate the principles of Natural Justice. 4. This Court is in agreement with the contentions of the Respondents, inasmuch as the Petitioner cannot expect an advance Notice when the Respondents decided to conduct sudden raids and checks for the purpose of curbing theft of electricity. Having recorded the same, this Court is of the view that the present Writ Petition is devoid of any merit. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 3 5. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt:08.01.2026 Vns