Veluru Pedda Raganna, v. The District Collector,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.1670 of 2012 Dated 20th August, 2015 Between:

Veluru Pedda Raganna and another

...Petitioners

And The District Collector, Anantapur and others

...Respondents

Counsel for the petitioners: Sri P.Naresh Babu for Sri Ganduri Nageswara Rao Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri T.V.Hanuman Singh for Smt.J.Koteswari Devi The Court made the following:

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in seeking to disconnect power supply in respect of service connection bearing No.53 of Bhudedu Village, Garladinne Mandal, Anantapur District as illegal and arbitrary. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by respondent No.2, wherein it is inter alia stated that the petitioners have nothing to do with service connection No.53 as the same was released in the name of one Veluru Venkata Narayana for the purpose of irrigation of the land in Survey No.187 and that the petitioners have dug three bore wells in Survey No.117 without obtaining permission under the provisions of the A.P.Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002. It is further stated that the said registered consumer namely, V.V.Narayana, has attended the

office of respondent No.2 on 14.02.2012 and given a statement before the said respondent that service connection No.53 belongs to him only and that the land in Survey No.187 belonging to him is situated far way from the land in Survey No.117 belonging to the petitioners. The fact that one V.V.Narayana is the registered consumer in respect of service connection No.53 is not disputed by the petitioners. On the contrary, in the prayer itself, the petitioners have mentioned that service connection No.53 stands in the name of their brother, V.V.Narayana. In the light of the petitioners' own admission that they are not the registered consumers and as the registered consumer has not joined the petitioners in filing this writ petition, the latter have no locus standi to maintain this writ petition.

On this short ground alone, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, interim order, dated 25.01.2012, shall stand vacated and WP.MP.No.2077 of 2012 and WV.M.P.No.991 of 2012 shall stand disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 20th August, 2015 VGB