✦ Andhra Pradesh High Court · 17 Jun 2026

Writ Petition No. 15728 of 2026 · Andhra Pradesh High Court

Writ Petition No. 15728 of 2026VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA2 min read

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 55. In view of the submission of learned Assistant Government Pleader for Energy that the respondents shall adhere 3 to the procedure prescribed under the Electricity Act, 2003 and the applicable rules and regulations before taking any action affecting the petitioners service connection, and without…

Judgment

1.

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

to issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents particularly the respondents 4 and 5 in threatening to disconnect power supply bearing Service the house Connection No.144121031001950 admeasuring 1451/4 sq yards covered by D.No.822 in R.S No.2611 situated at Balabhadrapuram Village, Biccavole Mandal, Prakasam District as illegal irregular irrational without any authority of law and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to disconnect the aforesaid house the power supply given property.

During hearing, Sri Navuluri Krishna Sai, learned counsel for the petitioners, without touching the merits of the case, requested this Court to issue a direction to the respondents not to disconnect the power supply the 144121031001950 the house admeasuring 1451/4 sq yards covered by D.No.822 in R.S No.2611 situated at Balabhadrapuram Village, Biccavole Mandal, Prakasam District, without following due process of law.

3.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Energy has drawn attention of this Court to Clause 5.2.3 of Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., General Terms and Conditions of Supply 2 Clause 5.2.3 issued in Proceedings No.Secy/01/2006 dated

06.01.2006 and would contend that an applicant who is not the owner of the premises and occupies the premises and intending to avail supply, shall submit an Indemnity Bond drawn by the owner of the premises in favour of the company whereby the owner of the premises undertakes to indemnify the company for any loss caused to the company by the applicant who is the tenant/occupant of the premises arising out of release of service tenant/occupant, otherwise he shall be required to pay three times the normal security deposit apart from providing proof of his being in lawful occupation of the premises.

4.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Energy further submits that the respondents, being statutory authorities under the Electricity Act, 2003 and the rules and regulations framed thereunder, shall not take any adverse action against the petitioner except in accordance with law and, if disconnection of power supply becomes necessary, the respondents shall follow the prescribed statutory procedure, including issuance of notice and affording an opportunity of hearing, if required.

5.

In view of the submission of learned Assistant Government Pleader for Energy that the respondents shall adhere 3 to the procedure prescribed under the Electricity Act, 2003 and the applicable rules and regulations before taking any action affecting the petitioners service connection, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival claims, this Writ Petition is disposed of recording the said submission. It is made clear that any action, including disconnection of power supply, if warranted, shall be taken only in accordance with law and after following the prescribed procedure. No costs.

6.

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. Date: 17.06.2026 SP ______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Constitution of India — arts. 14, 21, 226; Electricity Act, 2003.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 17 Jun 2026. The bench was VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Andhra Pradesh High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Writ Petition No. 15728 of 2026). ← Search more judgments