The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.35868 of 2014 Dated 09.12.2014 Between:
M.Srinivasa Raju And …Petitioner The Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director and 2 others.
…Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.Venkateshwar Varanasi Counsel for respondent No.1: Mr.P.Anand Seshu, SC for APCPDCL The Court made the following:
Order:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in considering the petitioner’s application, dated 08- 09-2014, for grant of new service connection to his property situated in Survey No.184/6 of Chippada Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to consider the said application.
At the hearing, Mr.P.Anand Seshu, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1- Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited (APEPDCL), on instructions, submitted that, on 09-09-2014, the line inspector has visited the petitioner’s premises referred to above and found that a service connection was already in existence in the name of one Kalidindi Ramadevi and that therefore, the respondents have decided to reject the petitioner’s application. He is, however, unable to state as to whether any order to that effect was passed and communicated to the petitioner.
When an application for grant of service connection is made, it is incumbent upon the licensee to take appropriate decision thereon and communicate the same to the applicant. If the respondents have decided to reject the petitioner’s application, they are bound to communicate the said decision in writing by mentioning therein the reasons therefor. As this procedure does not appear to have been followed, respondent No.3 i.e., the Assistant Engineer, Operation, APEPDCL Chittivalasa, is directed to communicate the decision taken on the petitioner’s application, dated 08-09-2012, to him within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On receipt of such communication, if the petitioner feels aggrieved by the decision taken by respondent No.3, he is entitled to avail appropriate legal remedy.
Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.44886 of 2014, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J)
Dt: 9th December, 2014
LUR