Chintalapati Chinna Subbaraju v. Additional Asst.Engineer (Operations)A.P.Eastern Power Distribution Co.Ltd., Nidamarru, W.G.District
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 05 Oct 2004
- Bench
- G ROHINI
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
Cause title
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondent not to remove the service connection of power supply of the petitioners by declaring that the action of the respondent vide his notice Lr.No.AAE/O/NDMR/F dt.19-8-2004 is highly arbitrary, illegal violative of principles of natural justice discriminatory violative of Art.14, 21 and 300-A of the constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.C.RAMACHANDRA RAJU Counsel for the Respondent: MR.KANAKAMEDALA RAVINDRA KUMAR The Court at the admission stage made the following:
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. Petitioner states that he obtained service connection of power supply in the year 1998 bearing S.C.No.83 for the purpose of agricultural operations at Bynepalli village, Nidamanuru Mandal of West Godavari District. He states that he has been regularly paying the energy consumption charges and there is absolutely no default at any point time. While so, the impugned proceedings dated 19.08.2004 issued by the respondent has been served on the petitioner, in which it is stated that as per the proceedings of the District Collector, West Godavari in R.C.No.D6/11717/96, dated 08.08.1999, the land of the petitioner form part of Contour +5’ MSL as per the map of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Andhra Pradesh and that it also falls within the bird Sanctuary of Kolleru and therefore, the electrical service connection of the petitioner will be disconnected after one week from the date of the said notice.
The petitioner denies all the allegations made in the said notice and states that the land in question is his own land. It is also contended that the unilateral decision of the respondent under the impugned notice to disconnect the power supply to the service connection of the petitioner without affording any opportunity to rebut the allegations made therein, is arbitrary and illegal apart from the being without jurisdiction. A reading of the impugned notice shows that the petitioner was not issued any prior notice to rebut the allegations that the land in question forms part of Bird Sanctuary of Kolleru. It is also the specific plea of the petitioner that the proceedings of the District Collector, West Godavari District, dated 08.08.1999 were not served on him and in the absence of the same, he cannot effectively explain the allegations in the impugned notice. In the circumstances, I am of the view that it would be appropriate to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to meet the allegations made in the impugned notice.
Accordingly, the impugned notice is set aside and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to furnish a copy of the proceedings of the District Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru in R.C.No.D6/11717/96, dated 08.08.1999, within one week from today. On receipt of the said proceedings, it is open to the petitioner to submit his explanation to the respondent treating the impugned notice as show-cause notice within one week thereafter. If such explanation is received within time specified above, respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Till such orders are passed, there shall not be any disconnection of power supply to the petitioner’s Service Connection No.83 situated at Bynepalli village, Nidamarru Mandal, West Godavari District. VGB ________________
05.10.2004 To
The Additional Asst. Engineer (Operations)A.P.Eastern Power Distribution Co.Ltd.,Nidamarru, W.G.District.
2CD copies
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 05 Oct 2004. The bench was G ROHINI.
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.