IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No.36793 OF 2025 Between: Banavathu Nandini, W/o Banavathu Mahesh Nayak, aged about 31 years, R/o Door No 7-27, K.S.R. Nagar, Dharmavarappadu Thanda, Jayanthipuram, Krishna District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Energy Department Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur district. 522238, and others. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.Burlu Chandra Sekhar Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : G.P. for Energy The Court made the following ORDER: Heard Mr.G.V.S. Mehar Kumar, learned arguing counsel for the petitioner. 2. The writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in taking steps to install an electricity transformer in front of the petitioner’s house bearing door No.7–27, K.S.R. Nagar, Dharmavarappadu Thanda, Jayanthipuram, Krishna District, without considering the representation dated 29.12.2025 as illegal, arbitrary etc., and for consequential directions. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner while making submissions with reference to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of 2 the writ petition and the material filed along with the same, pleads that as the installation of transformer in front of the petitioner’s residence would likely to cause danger to the lives of the petitioner’s family and the property, a representation was made and without considering the same, the respondent authorities have taken steps to erect the transformer and therefore, the petitioner is constrained to file the writ petition. 4. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to make further submissions, in view of the communication dated 07.1.2026 addressed by the respondent No.3 to the petitioner, a copy of which is placed for perusal of this Court, it is clear that the Authorities have dropped the idea of erecting transformer in front of the petitioner’s house and they are contemplating to install the same at a different place. As seen from the communication dated 07.1.2026, the same was received by the petitioner on 09.1.2026. 5. In view of the same, the matter need not be gone into and the writ petition is closed. However, the petitioner may seek recourse to law, if fresh cause of action arises. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J Date: 20.01.2026. vasu