ORDER:

Heard Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Metta Chandra Sekhara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, apart from perusing the entire material available on record.

2. Rejection of the applications, dated 02.08.2021, of the petitioners herein, for extending power supply vide the impugned Whats App messages, is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

3. According to the petitioners, who claim to be the owners of the subject properties, they submitted applications requesting the respondent-Electricity authorities to extend the power supply.

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, enclosing all the required documents, as per the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) and the Regulations framed thereunder, petitioners herein submitted their applications. Vide impugned Whats App messages, dated 02.08.2021, respondent authorities returned the applications, submitted by the petitioners herein, on the ground that there is a site dispute. Learned counsel contends that the action impugned in the present Writ Petition is highly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the provisions of Section 43 of the Act and Clause (4) of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission Regulation 3/2004 and Clause (5) of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply.

5. At the hearing, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, as pointed out in the Whats App messages, which are impugned in the present Writ Petition, there is no civil dispute and, in order to substantiate the same, he takes the support of the certificate issued by the Deputy Tahsildar, Amudalavalasa Mandal and the Village Revenue Officer of Thotada Village, wherein it is indicated that Sy.No.91/6 of Thotada Revenue of Masahubpeta Madhura, Amudalavalasa Mandal, Srikakulam is a Zeroyithi land and there is no civil dispute on the land.

6. On the contrary, learned Standing Counsel contends strenuously that the present Writ Petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable before this Court, having regard to the provisions of sub-Section (5) of Section 42 of the Act and the petitioners herein are required to avail the said remedy in accordance with the said provision of law.

7. A perusal of the impugned Whats App messages, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, clearly reveals that, except noting that there is a site dispute, respondent authorities did not assign any sort of reasons nor provided any information as to the nature of the said dispute and the particulars thereof.

8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the issue requires reconsideration by the respondent authorities and the respondent authorities are required to assign reasons in a specific manner for rejecting the applications of the petitioners herein. Since in the Whats App messages, which are impugned in the present Writ Petition, there are absolutely no reasons, except the reason as mentioned supra, the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents, as regards the availability of alternative remedy, in the opinion of this Court, cannot stand having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.

9. For the aforesaid reasons, Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned Whats App messages, dated 02.08.2021, and the issue is remanded to the respondents for passing speaking orders, assigning the reasons for rejection, in a clear manner, including the particulars of the civil dispute, if any. This exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

_________________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J

22nd November, 2021.

Tsy