APHC010368982026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY, THE 21st DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 19854/2026 Between: 1. N. RAMESH, S/O LATE SRI. N. SUBBARATHNAM, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO.7-4-24, BRAHMANA VEEDHI, NAIDUPETA TOWN AND MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, ANDHRA PRADESH- 522238. 2. SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A P LIMITED APSPDCL, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRINIVASAPURAM, TIRUPATI, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517501. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A.P. LIMITED, TIRUPATI CIRCLE, TIRUPATI, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517501. 4. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NAIDUPETA, SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A.P. LIMITED, NAIDUPETA, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH -517501. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NAIDUPETA, SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A.P. LIMITED, NAIDUPETA, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH -517501. 2 6. THE ASSISTANT ACCOUNTS OFFICER NAIDUPETA, SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A.P. LIMITED, NAIDUPETA, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH -517501. 7. THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A P LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON, TIRUPATI, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517501. 8. B SABARI, W/O SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO.4-31, SODUM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 517501 ...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 to issue a writ more particularly in the form of Writ of certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 16.12.2025 passed by the RespondentNo. in C.G.No.348/2025-26 and to quash the same for it being per se illegal, manifestly arbitrary, irrational, unfair, biased, unconstitution al besides being opposed to the very spirit and object of Justice and Fair-play and Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 14, 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and for a consequential direction to restore the name of the petitioner in respect of the D.Nos.7-2-50, 7-2-48 and 7-2-49 bearing electric services SC.Nos.3611250009258, 3611250009259 and 3611250009660 respectively and to pass suc IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 Pleased to dispense with the filing of the certified Copy of the order dated 16.12.2025 passed by the Respondent No. 7 in C.G.No.348/2025- 26, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2026 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 pleased to stay the operation of the order dated 16.12.2025 passed by the Respondent No. 7 in C.O.No.34&i2025-26, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass 3 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VMR LEGAL Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ENERGY The Court made the following: 4 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 19854 OF 2026 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:- “to issue a writ more particularly in the form of Writ of certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 16.12.2025 passed by the Respondent No.7 in C.G.No.348/2025-26 and to quash the same for it being per se illegal, manifestly arbitrary, irrational, unfair, biased, unconstitutional besides being opposed to the very spirit and object of Justice and Fair-play and Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and for a consequential direction to restore the name of the petitioner in respect of the D.Nos.7-2-50, 7-2-48 and 7-2- 49 bearing electric services SC.Nos.3611250009258, 3611250009259 and 3611250009660 respectively and to pass such other order or orders ….” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s father is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject house properties bearing D.Nos.7-2-50, 7-2-48 and 7-2-49 situated at Brahmana Veedi, Naidupeta Town and Mandal, Tirupati District having acquired the same through a registered partition deed executed and registered on 15.10.1987. Pursuant to the same, petitioner’s father has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject properties. Upon the demise of the petitioner’s father, the petitioner herein along with his sister became the legal heirs of the said 5 properties and thereby acquired the same through legitimate rights and they have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said properties. While so, the unofficial respondent herein/ respondent No.8 is also claiming the rights over the subject property as the absolute owner of the subject property on the ground that the subject property was gifted by her maternal grandfather by way of a registered gift deed. It is further submitted that in view of the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.8, the petitioner herein invoked the jurisdiction of the competent civil jurisdictional Court and obtained an ad-interim injunction against the respondent No.8 and thereby restraining respondent No.8 from alienating, transferring, creating any third party interest in respect of the subject property vide orders dated 22.04.2022. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while the matter is pending before the competent Civil Court, respondent No.8 filed a complaint before the respondent No.7/ Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum (CGRF) seeking to transfer the service connection pertaining to the subject property in her name. It is further submitted that originally, the electricity service connection stands in the name of the father of the petitioner and later it was transferred to the petitioner. But later, pursuant to the application/complaint made by the respondent No.8 before the CGRF alleging the subject property was alienated in her favour by her maternal grandfather, the respondent No.7 passed an impugned order dated 16.12.2025 directing to transfer the service connections in respect of the disputed subject house property into her name. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein filed the present Writ Petition. 6 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the order impugned in the present writ petition is an appealable order and appeal lies to Vidyuth Ombudsman within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order passed by the CGRF. But without filing the statutory Appeal as provided, the petitioner herein invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court ignoring the alternative remedy as provided under the scheme of the Act. 6. Heard both the learned counsel and on perusal of the material placed on record. The fact remains that there is a dispute regarding the subject house property between the petitioner and the respondent No.8, who is none other than the maternal uncle and the niece. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject house property and thus, the electricity service connection should stand in the name of the occupier or owner. Since the petitioner satisfies both the conditions of owner as well as occupier, the service connection should stand in the name of the petitioner only. But the CGRF forum ignoring the legal position held, transferred the service connection contrary to Section 43(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel is that the petitioner can avail alternative remedy by way of filing Appeal. But in the instant case, the period of filing an appeal is 30 days from the date of passing of the impugned order but the same was already lapsed. Therefore, unless, this Court permits, the same cannot be availed by the petitioner. 7 7. Considering the facts as stated above, this Court is of the considered view that the present Writ Petition can be disposed of, directing the petitioner to prefer an Appeal before the Vidyuth Ombudsman, challenging the impugned order, as prescribed under the scheme of the Act, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the said appeal, the Viduyth ombudsman is directed to consider and dispose of the same after providing opportunity of hearing to both the parties, at the earliest. However, till disposal of the appeal, both the parties are directed to maintain Status Quo. 8. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J Date:21.07.2026 BSP 8 25 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO:19854 OF 2026 Date:21.07.2026 BSP