ORDER:

Heard Sri M.Ravindra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.Satish Kumar, learned Government Pleader for Energy, Sri Y.Nagi Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, and Sri K.Naveen Kumar, learned Government Pleader for Commerce and Industries, appearing for the respondents, apart from perusing the entire material available on record.

2. In the present Writ Petition, challenge is to the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in disconnecting the power supply to the petitioner-firm on the basis of the letter of the fourth respondent herein.

3. According to the petitioner, it is a proprietary firm having obtained the mineral dealership licence certificate bearing No.1450/ADL/2017 from the Department of Mines and Geology for the purpose of storing, selling and trading of road metal and building stone mineral and the same is valid till 31.05.2022. It is stated that the petitioner herein also possesses quarry lease for road metal and building stone in respect of an extent of 1.0 hectare in Sy.No.622 of Melavoi Village, Madakasira Mandal, Anantapur District and that the said lease came to be granted by the Deputy Director of Mines & Geology, Kurnool vide proceedings No.4018/Q4/2010, dated 21.01.2011. It is further stated that the said quarry lease is still subsisting. The Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Anantapur-fourth respondent herein issued a show cause notice bearing No.2119/Q1/RM/2010, dated 10.03.2020, calling upon the petitioner herein to show cause as to why action should not be taken while pointing out certain alleged irregularities. Subsequently, fourth respondent herein issued a demand notice bearing No.2119/QL/RM/2010, dated 07.04.2020, and demanded to pay a sum of Rs.8,13,13,085/- towards penalty amount along with the normal seignorage fee and the market value of the mineral shown in the said demand notice. Aggrieved by the said demand, dated 07.04.2020, petitioner herein filed a revision before the State Government under Rule 35-A of the A.P.Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (for brevity, ‘the Rules’) on 03.07.2017 and, according to the learned counsel, the said revision is pending consideration before the State Government.

4. While things being so, obviously, on the basis of the said action initiated under the provisions of the Rules, the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Anantapur-fourth respondent herein, vide letter No.1450/ADL/2017, dated 14.06.2021, made a request to the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, APSPDCL, Anantapur-second respondent herein to disconnect the power connection provided to the petitioner-firm. Obviously, as a sequel to the said letter, dated

14.06.2021, second respondent herein, while referring to the above mentioned request made by the fourth respondent, informed the petitioner herein that supply of power would be disconnected and the APSPDCL would not hold any responsibility for any damages and also informed that the petitioner herein may contact the fourth respondent in the event of there being any objections. According to the petitioner, disconnection had been effected by the respondents 2 and 3 in an illegal manner.

5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned action, which culminated in disconnection of the power supply to the petitioner-firm, is highly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, violaive of the principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that, neither the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 nor the Clauses in the General Terms and Conditions of power supply do authorise or empower the respondents herein to resort to the impugned action. In elaboration, it is further maintained by the learned counsel that the impugned action is also in contravention of the provisions of Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Clauses 17.1 and 17.2 of the General Terms and Conditions of Power Supply.

6. On the contrary, strenuously, opposing the