( 1 ) THIS second appeal is preferred by the unsuccessful plaintiff in both the Courts below against the Judgment and Decree dated 22-3-2004 made in A. S. No. 57 of 2002, on the file of the II Additional District Judge, kadapa, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 11 -6-2002 made in O. S. 33 of 1997 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur.

( 2 ) THE appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondents herein are the defendants in o. S. No. 33 of 1997.

( 3 ) FOR the purpose of convenience the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.

( 4 ) THE defendants are the officials of apseb. The appellant-plaintiff filed the above suit for declaration that the notice dated 9-2-1996 issued by the defendants to pay the arrears of Rs. 12,420/- as illegal and void and for damages with interest thereon and also for a mandatory injunction for restitution of service connection in S. C. No. 12254.

( 5 ) THE brief averments in the plaint are as hereunder:the plaintiff is the proprietary concern running ganesh Plastic Industry at dorasanipalli road Proddatur from October, 1988. The defendants suddenly without any advance notice disconnected the service connection on 22-5-1995. The plaintiff represented the matter before 4th and 6th defendants. But they have not considered and the plaintiff got issued a notice to the defendants. The defendants received the said notice. The 3rd defendant gave a reply without assigning any reason for the alleged disconnection, asking to pay amount of rs. 12,420/ -. Then once again plaintiff sent a notice marking copies to 4th and 5th defendants, but they have not restored the connection. Due to disconnection of service to the industry, the plaintiff suffered loss and plaintiff got issued a legal notice and defendant gave a reply with false pleas. The plaintiff suffered in total Rs. 90,400/- due to disconnection of service.

( 6 ) ON the other hand, the 4th defendant filed a written statement, which is adopted by the defendants 3 to 6. They pleaded that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit, and the said Ganesh Plastic industry is a partnership business. So the suit is not maintainable. The plaintiff has to prove that ganesh Plastic Industry is a Registered Firm and partners authorized hertoinstituteasuit. As per their record one S. Nagabhushana rao, who is the husband of the plaintiff got suit service connection No. 12254 and 17841. In the written statement it is admitted that they disconnected the service connection on 2-2-1995 for non-payment of C. C. Charges and outstanding kept energy arrears of rs. 2,12,196. 25 ps. in respect of service connection 17841 of West Proddatur, they disconnected in pursuance of provision under section (sic, condition) 42 (3) of Andhra pradesh State Electricity Board terms and conditions supplied to her. The same was known to the husband of the plaintiff. To circumvent, the husband of the plaintiff - nagabhushana Rao created and got filed the suit through his wife as Proprietar of Ganesh plastic Industry. They also pleaded that they gave suitable reply to the notice sent by her even to the notices. They further pleaded that Vigilance Anti-Power Theft Squad, kadapa in their letter dated 20-2-1995, informed to disconnect the service connection of Ganesh Plastic Industry, because Sri nagabhushana Rao committed theft of energy in respect of Krishna Plastic Industry, and they are empowered underthe provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board and the plaintiff did not sustain any loss. They mentioned the term under Section (sic. condition) 42. 3 (d) as "any other sums payable to the Board under the contract of supply or the tariff and terms and conditions of supply notified by the Board under Section 49 of electricity (Supply) Act, the Board may, without prejudice to its other rights, cause to be disconnected all or any of the other services of the consumer though such services be destruct (sic. distinct) and are governed by separate agreements and t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document