APHC010510362009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] MONDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION NO: 8095/2009 Between: 1. KOTHAPALLI SURYA RAO, S/O. PANTAYYA R/O. MIG-I- 141, VINAYAK NAGAR, PEDAGANTYADA, VUDA COLONY, 2. SMT. AJALA RAJESWARI (HINDU), W/O. RAJA RAO R/O. 31-23-38, KURAMANNAPALEM, VADLAPUDI POST, 3. SURISETTI BHULOKA (HINDU), S/O. RAMAYYA R/O. 31- 23-38/1, KURAMANNAPALEM, VADLAPUDI POST, 4. MOHAMMAD ABID ALI (MUSLIM), S/O. MOHAMMAD MUSTAFA ALI R/O. D.NO. 8-1-18, JOGAVANIPALE, KOTHA GAJUWAKA HIGH SCHOOL ROAD, ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE DIRECTOR OPERATIONS, APEPDCL SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, APEPDCL NEAR GREEN PARK HOTEL, RAM NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, AP TRANSCO VADLAPUDI, 2 NJS,J W.P.NO.8095 OF 2009 GAJUWAKA POST, VISAKHAPATNAM. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM DIST. VISAKHAPATNAM. 5. CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION DEPT, (RAIVADA CANAL) NEAR ZILLA PARISHAD, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...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 toto issue a suitable writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandmaus decalring the action of the Respondents in laying High Tension electrical lines (33 K.V.) across/ adjacent to our properties covered by S.No. 64/1, 70 and other Survey Numbers of Kurmannapalem, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principels of natural justice and also violative Article 14, 16 and 300-A of Constitution of India and also contrary to Indian Electricity rules and direct the Respondents not to lay the lay the High Tension Electrical lines (33 K.V.) across/adjacent the properties of the petitioners covered by S.No. 64/1, 70 and other Survey Numbers, Kurmannapalem, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. IA NO: 1 OF 2009(WPMP 10588 OF 2009 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 to stop the work of laying of the High Tension Electrical lines (33 K.V.) across/adjacent the properties of the Petitioners covered by S.No. 64/1, 70 and other Survey Numbers, Kurmannapalem, Gajuwaka (Mandal), Visakhapatnam, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 3 NJS,J W.P.NO.8095 OF 2009 1. S A V RATNAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL) 2. GP FOR IRRIGATION COMM AREA DEV The Court made the following: 4 NJS,J W.P.NO.8095 OF 2009 ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, who appeared through online and states that despite her best efforts, she could not secure latest instructions in the matter. 2. The writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents in laying of the High Tension Electrical lines (33K.V) across/adjacent to the properties of the petitioners covered by S.No.64/1,70 and other survey numbers of Kurmannapalem, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam, as illegal, arbitrary etc., and contrary to the Indian Electrical Rules and for consequential directions to the respondents not to lay the High Tension Electrical lines (33 K.V.) across/adjacent to the said properties. 3. The petitioners claim that they have purchased the house- sites in a Layout (unnamed) covered by Sy.No.64/1, 70 and other survey numbers of Kurmannapalem, Gajuwaka Mandal by way of registered sale deeds and that they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. Their grievance is that the respondent authorities started digging big pits through and adjacent to their house plots in the layout, though they made a representation dated 06.04.2009, expressing their apprehensions 5 NJS,J W.P.NO.8095 OF 2009 for the shifting and laying of Over Head High Tension Electrical Lines (33K.V) through/adjacent to their house-sites. However, no action was taken. 4. At the time of considering the matter for admission, a learned Judge, while granting time for filing counter-affidavit, directed the respondents not to proceed with the further work of erection of electrical line over the lands of the petitioners for a period of two (2) weeks. The said order was in force till 29.06.2009. Vide order dated 01.07.2009, two weeks’ time was granted to the petitioners to file additional affidavit regarding the exact locations over which the line is proposed to be laid, namely; over the petitioners plots or their adjacent plots. Thereafter, the matter underwent several adjournments and as seen from the docket proceedings, it appears that the interim orders were not extended. 5. Be that as it may, the learned counsel for the petitioners fairly stated that no additional affidavit was filed. Apart from that, no reply affidavit was filed to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. 6 NJS,J W.P.NO.8095 OF 2009 6. A specific stand is taken in the counter affidavit by the respondent authorities inter-alia to the effect that shifting of electrical lines was undertaken at the instance of the irrigation department which is claiming to be the owner of the property and the proposed land is adjacent to the canal. It is further stated that the distance as required to be maintained under Rule 82 of the Indian Electricity Rules would be followed at the time of erection of the poles. The necessary safeguards as prescribed under the new Indian Electricity Rules for laying of the electrical wires are being taken and the same are being erected in the land shown by the Irrigation Department. 7. The counter affidavit was filed in the year 2014 and the statements made therein remain uncontroverted. 8. Non-filing of the reply affidavit to the counter affidavit is fatal and indicates that the petitioners are not serious in pursuing the cause in the writ petition. The respondent authorities, due to afflux of time and as the interim order was not continued after 29.06.2009, appear to have completed the shifting of lines and erection of new poles for transmission of electricity. 7 NJS,J W.P.NO.8095 OF 2009 9. Be that as it may. Considering the fact that the interim orders have not been extended after 2009, the only presumption the Court can draw, in the absence of any specific instructions to the learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the cause does not survive for adjudication. 10. In the light of the above stated position, the writ petition is closed. In the event any cause of action survives, the petitioners are at liberty to seek recourse to law. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA 02.03.2026 LSP