S. PARVATHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner questions Condition No. 42. 3 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply of electrical Energy by the Andhra Pradesh state Electricity Board ("the Conditions" for short) as ultra vires the powers of the board and as unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of india and contends that, therefore, the notice in Lr. No. AE/o/d2/gnl/f. No. Dis/d. No. 1028/92, dated 5-2-1992 issued by the 2nd Respondent herein i. e. , Assistant engineer, Operation, D. 2, A. P. S. E. B. , Tenali, is illegal. He seeks a writ of mandamus restraining the Respondents 1 and 2 from disconnecting Service Connection No. 8192 of Tenali at the instance of the 3rd respondent.

( 2 ) IN the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition he states that he is the Managing partner of the petitioner-firm and that the 3rd Respondent and six others are owners of sri Lakshmi Narayana Rice, Dhal and Flour mill at Tenali, who is owning two mills - one a rice mill and the other a dhal and flour mill - and that both are situated in the same building, though in different portions of it. He states that the dhal and flour mill was leased to the petitioner-firm and that the rice mill was leased to one Sri Annam purnachandra Rao. He further states that the rice mill portion was being supplied with energy under S. C. No. 4079 in the name of the 3rd Respondent herein and that the dhal and flour mill portion was being supplied energy under S. C. No. 8192 also in the name of the 3rd Respondent. He states that there were arrears in respect of supply of energy for rice mill portion under S. C. No. 4079 to the extent of Rs. 6,368/- and default was committed in clearing the said arrears. The 2nd Respondent issued the impugned notice dated 5-2-1992 for disconnecting the Service connection No. 8192 for dhal and flour mill portion, which has been leased by the petitioner even though there were not dues in respect of the energy supplied to the dhal and flour mill portion and the petitioner had been promptly paying all the bills for the energy consumed on S. C. No. 8192. Finding that Condition No. 42. 3 of the Conditions enables the Board to disconnect supply of energy to other service connections for a defaulting consumer, the petitioner seeks to question the validity of the said Condition.

( 3 ) THE writ petition was admitted on 4-3-1992 and on the same day in W. P. M. P. No. 3753 of 1992 this Court granted interim direction to the respondents not to disconnect the power supply to the petitioner s premises subject to the condition of the petitioner paying a sum of Rs. 6,368/- to the second respondent within ten days. The impugned letter dated 5-2-1992 was addressed by the 2nd Respondent herein to the 3rd Respondent requiring him to pay a sum of Rs. 6,368/- standing due against his S. C. No. 4079 within seven days of the receipt of the said letter, failing which "the other Live Services on your name or your heirs shall be disconnected without further notice". The 3rd Respondent was not made a party to W. P. M. P. No. 3753 of 1992. He filed W. P. M. P. No. 17342 of 1992 for impleading himself as 3rd Respondent in W. P. M. P. No. 3753 of 1992 and sought vacation of the said interim directions dated 4-3-1992 in W. P. M. P. No. 1644 of 1992. However, the interim directions were made absolute by order dated 21-1-1993.

( 4 ) THE 3rd Respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating that the lease in favour of the petitioner-firm expired in 1989 itself, that there was no subsequent renewal of the lease in favour of the petitioner-firm and that, therefore, he has no locus standi to come to this Court by way of the present writ petition. He further states that the Managing partner of the petitioner-firm is also one of the co-owners owning the two mills and that the service connections to both the mills have been obtained in the name of the 3rd Respondent to keep a check on unlawful activities and self-enrichment policies of the said Manag

Click Here to Read the rest of this document