APHC010015302025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3209]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No: 745 of 2025 Between:

1. NAIDU VENKATA RAMANA, S/o.NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/oD.No.2-165, NAIDU VEEDI, CHINADODDIGALLU (V), NAKKAPALLE (M), VISHAKAPATNAM DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENERGY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT

2. THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM, REP.BY.ITS CHAIR PERSON, VISHAKAPATNAM DISTRICT.

3. THE APEPDCL, REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGING DIRECTOR OFFICE AT SEETHAMMADHARA RD, TPT COLONY, P & T COLONY, BALAYYA SASTRI LAYOUT, SEETHAMMADARA, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530001

4. THEAPEPDCL, REP., BY ITS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OPERATION, NAKKAPALLI, ANAKAPALLE DISTRICT.

5. G SRINIVASA RAO, R/O D.NO.39-33-147/1, LIG-81, VUDA COLONY PHASE - II, MADHAVADHARA, VISHAKAPATNAM VISHAKAPATNAM DISTRICT - 530018 ...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. Mr.ARUN KUMAR R Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR ENERGY

2. Mr.V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL)

3. Mr.SRINIVASULU P The Court made the following Order:

The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the orders passed by the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum (for short ‘Forum’), APEPDCL, Visakhapatnam dated 30.12.2024 in C.G.No.429 of 2024.

2. The 5^th respondent herein approached Forum by making a complaint against the writ petitioner herein and two others for redressal of grievance under Clause 9 (1) r/w Clause 2.5 of Regulation 3 of 2016 notified by the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (APERC), for removal of service connection granted in the name of the writ petitioner and to restore the original connection bearing No.113356G202000294 to the 5^th respondent /

complainant.

3. Before the Forum, the 5^th respondent / complainant, inter alia, pleaded that the said service connection bearing No. 113356G202000294, which is in the name of his grandfather one Mr.G.Seetambaran was dismantled, without any prior intimation / intimation, thereby caused inconvenience to his daily life. While alleging that the concerned Assistant Engineer without verification of the documents, illegally granted electrical connection No.113356G202001825 in the name of writ petitioner for the house Assessment No.373 of Chinnadoddigallu Village, he requested the Forum to order an enquiry into the issue of dismantling his old electrical connection and issuing new electrical connection and cancel the illegally issued electric connection bearing No.113356G202001825. The writ petitioner contested the matter and the Forum vide Order dated 30.12.2024 allowed the complaint and directed the restoration of the old service connection No. 113356G202000294. It also directed the DISCOM authorities to dismantle the service connection No. 113356G202001825 and the Superintendent Engineer/Operation, Anakapalli to initiate departmental enquiry against the concerned Assistant Executive Engineer of the Distribution Company.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the order of the Forum, with reference to the contentions raised in the writ petition. Whereas, the learned counsel for the 5^th respondent / complainant while contending that the writ petition is not maintainable as the same was filed without availing the statutory remedy before the Vidyut Ombudsman, also submits that even on the merits also, the order under challenge is sustainable for the reasons stated in the counter-affidavit.

5. In the light of the objection to the maintainability of the writ petition, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that in fact, against the order of the Forum dated 30.12.2024 impugned in the writ petition, a Representation was made to the Vidyut Ombudsman on 06.01.2025, but the same was returned on 07.01.2025. In this regard, the learned counsel for the writ petit