APHC010551842025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION N Between: 1. SOMANDHEPALLI PRAVEENA, W/O G. PRAKASH REDDY, AGED 42 YEARS, R/O. PAAPIREDDY PALLE VILLAGE, BUDILI POST, GORANTIA MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, AP. 2. ANDHRA PRADESH SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, VIJAYAWADA, 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, APSPDCL, PUTTAPARTHY, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, APSPDCL, HINDUPUR SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. 5. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OPERATIONS AND CUSTOMER SERVICE APSPDCL, HINDUPUR DIVISION, SRI SAI DISTRICT. 6. THE ASSISTANT DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, APSPDCL, HINDUPUR DIVISION, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No: 28930 of 2025 SOMANDHEPALLI PRAVEENA, W/O G. PRAKASH REDDY, AGED 42 YEARS, R/O. PAAPIREDDY PALLE VILLAGE, BUDILI POST, GORANTIA MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, AP. ANDHRA PRADESH SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH. SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, APSPDCL, PUTTAPARTHY, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, APSPDCL, HINDUPUR SRI SATYA THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OPERATIONS AND CUSTOMER SERVICE APSPDCL, HINDUPUR DIVISION, SRI THE ASSISTANT DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, APSPDCL, HINDUPUR DIVISION, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3209] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA SOMANDHEPALLI PRAVEENA, W/O G. PRAKASH REDDY, AGED 42 YEARS, R/O. PAAPIREDDY PALLE VILLAGE, BUDILI POST, GORANTIA MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, SECRETARIAT, ANDHRA PRADESH SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF AND MANAGING SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, APSPDCL, PUTTAPARTHY, THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, APSPDCL, HINDUPUR SRI SATYA THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OPERATIONS AND CUSTOMER SERVICE APSPDCL, HINDUPUR DIVISION, SRI SATYA THE ASSISTANT DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, APSPDCL, HINDUPUR 2 7. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, APSPDCL, CHILAMATHUR, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. 8. C.VIJAYAMMA, W/O. C. RAJA REDDY, AGED ABOUT UNKNOWN, R/O. NOW PAPIREDDYPALLI VILLAGE, GORANTIA MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Ms.PANGULURU RACHANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Mr.VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA SC FOR APSPDCL 2. GP FOR ENERGY 3 The Court made the following Order: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.K.Ashok, learned counsel appeared on behalf of Mr.Kota Venkata Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for APSPDCL appearing for respondents 2 to 7. Despite service of notice on respondent No.8, none entered appearance. 2. The writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents 4 to 7 in trying to disconnect the power supply by removing the name of the petitioner for the agricultural service connection bearing No.7312105000157 in respect of property admeasuring Ac.0.82 cents in Survey No.569/1 situated in Budili Village, Gorantla Mandal, as illegal, arbitrary etc., and for consequential directions. 3. The counsel for the petitioner made submissions with reference to the averments in the affidavit and the circumstances that led to filing of the present writ petition. She submits that at the instance of the 8th respondent, the respondents 4 to 7 were bent upon to disconnect the power to the petitioner’s agricultural service connection referred to above. She submits that before resorting to such an attempt, it is least expected that a prior notice giving opportunity to the petitioner, is issued. However, as such a procedure was not adhered to, the petitioner, having been left with no other alternative, is constrained to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. While stating that by virtue of the interim orders granted by this Court, the power supply to the subject matter connection was not disconnected, the learned counsel also drawn the attention to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf 4 of the respondents 2 to 7. In Para No.10 of the counter-affidavit, it is inter alia stated as follows: “10. It is submitted that there is no cause of action against the respondent- Corporation. The service connection is active, no disconnection is made or proposed, and the administrative decision to maintain the record in the original consumer’s name is neither illegal nor arbitrary. The petitioner has approached this Court prematurely and without any infringement of her legal rights.” 4. In the light of the above stated position to the effect that there is no proposal to disconnect the power supply to the subject matter service connection, this Court deems it not necessary to examine the matter in detail. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, providing that no action in respect of the subject matter service connection shall be resorted to, except by following the procedure as contemplated under the General Terms and Conditions for supply of electricity and the principles of natural justice. No costs. Consequently, all pending applications shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Dt. 02.03.2026 BLV 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No: 28930 of 2025 Date: 02.03.2026 BLV