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

2025 Supreme(AP) 839 ; 2025 Supreme(AP) 839

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.
Shaik Basheed, S/o Shaik Mahaboob – Appellant 
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Energy Department – Respondent 
Writ Petition No: 8979 of 2025
Decided On : 16-06-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :  Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri
For the Respondent: Smt. Jyothi Ratna Anumolu, Sri P. Veera Reddy, Sri Khaja Basha

A writ of mandamus can only be issued if the petitioner establishes a legal right and its infringement; the petitioner failed to prove entitlement to electricity service connection.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ jurisdiction - The petitioner challenged the disconnection of electricity supply due to alleged unlawful possession of Wakf property without valid lease and required permissions. The court reiterates that a writ of mandamus requires proof of a legal right and its infringement. (Paras 14, 15, 16, 22)

(B) Electricity Supply - Legal right to service connection - The petitioner failed to provide documents supporting lawful entitlement to electricity service. The power was disconnected following proper notice under Clause 17.2 of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply. (Paras 10, 11, 21, 23)

Facts of the case:
The writ petition was filed by the petitioner against the disconnection of electricity for a service centre allegedly operating on Wakf property. The disconnection followed complaints about unlawful possession and failure to shown valid documentation.

Findings of Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming that the authority acted within its bounds by disconnecting the service in absence of proof of legal entitlement.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the petitioner established legal rights concerning electric service connection and if the disconnection was justified.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a writ of mandamus requires proof of a legal right. The petitioner did not demonstrate such a right or provide requisite permission to operate the service.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

ORDER :

SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.

The above writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondents 5 to 7 in disconnecting the electricity supply to the S.C.No.8431304027253 of Bismillah Water Service Centre, in survey No.438/A2, Nandyal Town, Nandyal District, at the behest of respondents 8 and 9, without considering the petitioner’s representation, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. The averments in the affidavit, in brief, are that the land of an extent of Ac.00-45 cents in survey No.438/A2, Nandyal Town, Nandyal District, originally belonged to late Nasyam Hazi Peeran Saheb, S/o Hazi Beeram Saheb, who, in turn, gifted the property to a Mosque i.e. Bakkar Kasab Mosque, by registered gift deed dated 25.04.1961. Thus, the property became the absolute property of the Mosque. Subsequently, the name of the Mosque is changed to Masjid-e-Quresh. Respondent No.9, the development committee, is managing the affairs of the Mosque, and the then General Secretary of respondent No.9 executed a lease deed dated 03.03.2010 in favour of the petitioner for three years and handed over the physical possession to the petitioner. The petitioner established ‘Bismillah Water Service Centre’, by raising a temporary structure.

b) An electricity service connection of Lower Tension (L.T.) Category- III already existed in the name of B. Ravi Kumar, in the subject property. The petitioner has been paying monthly consumption charges. When some of the members of respondent No.9 tried to interfere with the petitioner’s possession, the petitioner filed suit O.S.No.128 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal, against two individuals seeking perpetual injunction, and the said suit is pending.

c) Be that as it may, the President of respondent No.9 addressed a letter, dated 01.02.2025, to the Executive Engineer, APSPDCL, Nandyal, stating that the property, located in survey No.438/A2 is owned by the Masjid and the petitioner encroached on some part of the property. Accordingly, requested the authority to disconnect the power supply to SC No.8431304027253. The Inspector Auditor of the Wakf Board also addressed a letter dated 10.02.2025 to cancel or disconnect the power supply to service connection No.22404731 and ISC No.27253. Based on the said letters, respondent No.7 issued a notice dated 13.02.2025, directing the petitioner to submit the documents, if any. The service connection was disconnected on 20.02.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation dated 20.02.2025 (Ex.P4), for which the Assistant Executive Engineer, Distribution, sent a reply dated 22.02.2025 (Ex.P5) intimating the petitioner that the power supply would be restored on getting a legal opinion. The writ petition was filed on 02.04.2025.

3. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No.8. It was contended, inter alia, that the petitioner obtained an unregistered lease deed on 10.03.2010, purportedly executed by the General Secretary of a self- proclaimed and unauthorized Managing Committee without securing a prior approval from the A.P. State Wakf Board under Section 51 of the WAKF ACT 1995. The lease, even going by Ex.P1, filed by the petitioner, expired on 10.03.2013, and it was not renewed thereafter. On receipt of the representation dated 07.02.2025, regarding the petitioner’s unlawful possession, respondent No.8 addressed a letter to respondent No.5, to disconnect the electricity service to SC No.8431304027253, who, in turn, disconnected the power connection on 20.02.2025, after following the procedure. Thereafter, the petitioner vacated the premises voluntarily. A compound wall has been constructed, and a signboard has been erected. The petitioner, under the pretext of seeking restoration of power supply, is attempting to re-enter the subject Wakf property. The Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board is not a party defendant to suit O.S.No.128 of 2010. Any lease of immovable Wakf property without prior sanction of the Wakf Board, as per Section 51 of the Act, is

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top