SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1968 Supreme(AP) 44

O.CHHINNAPPA REDDY
MATADIN – Appellant
Versus
ASST. ENGINEER D. P. E. , HYDERABAD – Respondent


O. CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners in all these Writ Petitions are consumers of electricity to whom electrical energy is supplied by the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Board officials of the Board, suspecting that there has been illegal and unauthorised abstration of electrical energy by the petitioners stopped supply of energy to the petitioners by disconnscting their service, as they are authored to do under Clause 10 of -he General Terms and conditions. Pending determination of the amount of compensation payable to the Board for the unauthorised abstraction of energy in accordance with Clause 9 as sure of interim relief, the Board, through its Officers offered to each of the petitioners to resume supply of electricity if they paid a certain amount estimat. ed by the Board tentatively as compensation. At that stage the petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Art, 226 of the Constitution for the issue of Writs to direct the respondent Board to restore supply of electricity and to restrain the Board from enforcing its alleged demand. In each of these cases an Interim order has been granted directing the Board to resume the supply of electricity on conditi






































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top