Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 11458
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Ninala Jayasurya, J
Kothapalli Surya Rao – Appellant
Versus
The Director Operations – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 8095/2009
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S A V Ratnam
For the Respondents: V V Satish, GP FOR IRRIGATION COMM AREA DEV
Failure to file a reply to a counter-affidavit and the expiration of interim orders without further pursuit by the petitioners leads to the presumption that the cause of action no longer survives, justifying the closure of the writ petition.
Headnote:The petitioners challenged the action of the respondents in laying 33 K.V. High Tension electrical lines across or adjacent to their properties, alleging violations of Article 14, 16, and 300-A of the Constitution of India and the Indian Electricity Rules. The petitioners claimed ownership of the house-sites via registered sale deeds and sought a writ of mandamus to stop the installation. The court noted that while an interim order was granted in 2009, it was not extended, and the petitioners failed to file a reply to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents in 2014. The primary issue was whether the cause of action survived for adjudication given the petitioners' inaction. The court observed that the non-filing of a reply affidavit to the counter-affidavit is "fatal and indicates that the petitioners are not serious in pursuing the cause." The court further reasoned that since interim orders had not been extended since 2009, the only presumption to be drawn is that the cause does not survive for adjudication. In the light of the above stated position, the writ petition is closed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and the failure of petitioners to file necessary affidavits to pursue the writ petition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. respondent's claim of compliance with indian electricity rules and land ownership by the irrigation department. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. closure of the petition based on the presumption that the cause of action no longer survives due to petitioner inaction. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue a suitable writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandmaus decalring the action of the Respondents in laying High Tension electrical lines (33 K.V.) across/ adjacent to our properties covered by S.No. 64/1, 70 and other Survey Numbers of Kurmannapalem, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principels of natural justice and also violative Article 14, 16 and 300-A of Constitution of India and also contrary to Indian Electricity rules and direct the Respondents not to lay the lay the High Tension Electrical lines (33 K.V.) across/adjacent the properties of the petitioners covered by S.No. 64/1, 70 and other Survey Numbers, Kurmannapalem, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.
IA NO: 1 OF 2009(WPMP 10588 OF 2009
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to stop the work of laying of the High Tension Electrical lines (33 K.V.) across/adjacent the properties of the Petitioners covered by S.No. 64/1, 70 and other Survey Numbers, Kurmannapalem, Gajuwaka (Mandal), Visakhapatnam, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition.
The Court made the following:
ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, who appeared through online and states that despite her best efforts, she could not secure latest instructions in the matter.
2. The writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents in laying of the High Tension Electrical lines (33K.V) across/adjacent to the properties of the petitioners covered by S.No.64/1,70 and other survey numbers of Kurmannapalem, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam, as illegal, arbitrary etc., and contrary to the Indian Electrical Rules and for consequential directions to the respondents not to lay the High Tension Electrical lines (33 K.V.) across/adjacent to the said properties.
3. The petitioners claim that they have purchased the house-sites in a Layout (unnamed) covered by Sy.No.64/1, 70 and other survey numbers of Kurmannapalem, Gajuwaka Mandal by way of registered sale deeds and that they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. Their grievance is that the respondent authorities started digging big pits through and adjacent to their house plots in the layout, though they made a representation dated 06.04.2009, expressing their apprehensions for the shifting and laying of Over Head High Tension Electrical Lines (33K.V) through/adjacent to their house-sites. However, no action was taken.
4. At the time of considering the matter for admission, a learned Judge, while granting time for filing counter-affidavit, directed the respondents not to proceed with the further work of erection of electrical line over the lands of the petitioners for a period of two (2) weeks. The said order was in force till 29.06.2009. Vide order dated 01.07.2009, two weeks’ time was granted to the petitioners to file additional affidavit regarding the exact locations over which the line is proposed to be laid, namely; over the petitioners plots or their adjacent plots. Thereafter, the matter underwent several adjournments and as seen from the docket proceedings, it appears that the interim orders were not extended.
5. Be that as it may, the learned counsel for the petitioners fairly stated that no addition
