APHC010476162026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE 10th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 25901 OF 2026 Between: 1. PASUPULETI RAVEENDRA BABU, Age 61 years, Business, S/o Venkataramanayya, R/o D.No.16-143, Ellantivari Street, Venkatagiri Town, Nellore District 524132 2. Pasupuleti Vanemma,, Age 63 years, Retired Employee, W/o Late Srinivasulu, R/o D.No.16-177/1, Purnasing Street, Venkatagiri Town, Nellore District 524132 ...Petitioners AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, rep by its Principal Secretary, Energy Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District 522238 2. The Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd, rep by its Managing Director, O/o D.No.19-13-65/A, Srinivasapuram, Tiruchanoor Road, Tirupati District 517503 3. Superintendent Engineer, Tirupati Operation Circle, O/o APSPDCL, D.No.19-13-65/A, Srinivasapuram, Tiruchanoor Road, Tirupati District 517503 4. Executive Engineer, Construction, O/o Superintendent Engineer, D.No.19- 13-65/A, Tiruchanoor Road, Tirupati District 517503 2 5. Executive Engineer, Operations, Naidupeta Division, Naidupeta, Tirupati District 524126 6. Deputy Executive Engineer, Operation, APSPDCL, Venkatagiri 524132 7. Assistant Executive Engineer, Operations, APSPDCL, Venkatagiri Town, Venkatagiri 524132 ...Respondents 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 toIssue an order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioners' complaints dated 04/08/2026, 10/08/2026, 11/08/2026 and 17/08/2026 against laying M12 pole for 33KV line in the petitioners' site when alternative space is available, which is government site adjacent to the petitioners' site, for laying M12 pole for 33KV line, in respect of the site covered by R.S.No.181/1, Kummaragunta Revenue Village, Venkatagiri Municipality, Nellore District, presently Tirupati District, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 300A, Work Licensees Rules 2008, Section 10 of the Telegraph Act and the Electricity Act 2003 and consequently direct the respondents to consider the petitioners' complaints dated 04/08/2026, 10/08/2026, 11/08/2026 and 17/08/2026 and take appropriate action in accordance with the provisions of the Work Licensees Rules 2008, Section 10 of the Telegraph Act and the Electricity Act 2003. 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 stay of further proceedings including stringing of conductors to the towers erected in the petitioners site in R.S.No.181/1, Kummaragunta Revenue Villlage,Venkatagiri Municipality, Nellore District presently Tirupati District pending disposal of the above writ petition 3 Counsel for the Petitioners: J RAVI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ENERGY The Court made the following order: 4 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 25901 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, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioners' complaints dated 04.08.2026, 10.08.2026, 11.08.2026 and 17.08.2026 against laying M12 pole for 33KV line in the petitioners' site when there is alternative space is available which is government site for laying M12 pole for 33 KV line which is adjacent to the petitioners’ site covered in R.S.No.181/1, Kummaragunta Revenue Village, Venkatagiri Municipality, Nellore District, presently Tirupati District, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 300-A, Work Licensees Rules 2008, Section 10 of the Telegraph Act and the Electricity Act 2003 and consequently direct the respondents to consider the petitioners' complaints dated 04.08.2026, 10.08.2026, 11.08.2026 and 17.08.2026 and take appropriate action in accordance with the provisions of the Work Licensees Rules, 2008, Section 10 of the Telegraph Act and the Electricity Act, 2003 and pass such other order or orders….” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners submitted complaints dated 04.08.2026, 10.08.2026, 11.08.2026 and 17.08.2026 alleging that the respondents are laying M12 pole for 33 KV transmission line within the petitioners’ site/house even though there is an alternative space available for laying such M 12 pole for 33 KV line. He further submits that adjacent to the subject pole there is a Government site/highway road margin. Therefore, the respondents can lay this particular M12 pole at 5 Government land/site. He further submits that after receipt of the representations/complaints, finally the respondents replied on 03.09.2026 stating that changing of the alignment regarding subject pole/tower is technically not possible. Moreover, it is observed the said pole/tower was laid just one feet adjacent to the existing pole, moreso the proposed pole/tower was already laid and also observed that it is situated within the road margin of the national high way. He further submits that even though they replied as road margin, but it is within the house site vested with the petitioners, hence laying of M12 pole is contrary to law and liable to be removed. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the representation of the petitioners were duly considered and issued an endorsement, wherein it is held that technical feasibility and alignment of transmission line for laying pole is the prime criteria for transmission of the electricity. He further submits that the subject pole/tower 33 KV was erected one feet adjacent to the existing pole of 11 KV line for strengthening and converting the subject electricity line. After having physical inspection and measurement, it is clear that the recent tower laid was situated within the limits of national highway road margin, but not within the site/land of the petitioners as alleged by them. Accordingly, an endorsement was already issued to the petitioner on 03.09.2026. 5. Considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel and on perusal of the material placed on record, it is observed that there is a dispute between the parties regarding the subject site where the alleged pole/tower 6 was erected. As per the petitioners it is within their land, but whereas the respondents categorically stated by way of an endorsement that the same was laid within the margin of national highway. As contended by the learned Standing Counsel that the construction of wall by the petitioner is adjacent to the subject pole indicates that the subject land fell within the road margin of the national highway. While issuing an endorsement, the respondents clearly and categorically stated that they inspected and verified the subject place pursuant to the complaints submitted by the petitioners and found that the subject tower/pole is within the margin of national highway. Therefore, the allegation of the petitioners that the subject tower is situated within the land/site of the petitioners would not be weighed much, for the reason that already existing pole is situated since long time and pole is out of the compound wall. It seems that the tower was already laid and it is also stated that for strengthening of the existing line, the subject tower was laid. As such, according to the technical specifications it was laid and the same cannot be disturbed due to the allegations of the petitioner as if it is within the land/site of the petitioners. Hence, there are no merits in the contentions raised by the petitioners. However, the petitioners are at liberty to get it survey their land by the concerned authority, after making an application for the same and proceed further as per the report or alternatively the petitioners are also entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the competent civil Court to prove their title over the subject land/site. 7 6. With the above observations, 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:10.09.2026 Note: C.C. by tomorrow B/o.TPS 8 01 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 25901 OF 2026 Date:10.09.2026 Note: C.C. by tomorrow B/o.TPS