B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri K. N. Jwala, learned Standing counsel for the respondent and Sri d. Hanumantha Rao on behalf of the 5th respondent. ( 2 ) THE petitioner in the instant writ petition challenges the proceedings in Letter no. AAE/op/ida/jdml/d. No. l30/2k dated 5-6-2000 on the file of the fourth respondent herein. ( 3 ) THE petitioner herein is a small-scale industry engaged in the generation and fabrication works. According to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner s unit is being run in a shed bearing No. D-29 situated in I. D. A. Jeedmetla, Phase-IV. The petitioner claims that he had taken the shed on lease from his brother. His brother is also running an Engineering workshop under the name and style of M/s, Neelam engineering Works which is a proprietary concern. It is stated that on account of some strained relationship between the petitioner and the 5th respondent herein, the petitioner decided to obtain a separate L. T. power supply with connected (contracted) load of 10 HP for his unit and accordingly submitted an application dated 5-5-2000 to release fresh service connection with 10 HP load in the name of the petitioner s firm. There was no response from the respondents. The petitioner filed W. P. No. 9445 of 2000 challenging the action of the respondents in not releasing L. T. power supply with a contracted load of 10 HP as highly illegal and arbitrary, hi the said writ petition, this Court directed the fourth respondent to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 5-5-2000 within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The fourth respondent after receiving the directions from this Court required the petitioner to furnish certain documents and accordingly the petitioner has furnished all the documents as is required by the fourth respondent. ( 4 ) THEREAFTER the fourth respondent herein through the impugned letter informed the petitioner that power supply could not be released to the petitioner on the following grounds: (I) Original owner i. e. , my brother has objected for release of supply. (ii) Lease agreement furnished by the petitioner comes to an end by 1-10-2001, but the minimum period of agreement between the consumers and A. P. C. P. D. L. is 5 years. (ii) Lease agreement furnished by the petitioner comes to an end by 1-10-2001, but the minimum period of agreement between the consumers and A. P. C. P. D. L. is 5 years. (iii) Consent letter has to be obtained from the original owner of the shed. (iv) NOC certificate from the concerned municipality has not ob tained. In this writ petition, it is stated that so far as the production of NOC from the municipality is concerned, the petitioner has already made an application and the petitioner is ready to furnish the same. It is stated that the reasons mentioned in ground nos. 1 to 3 in the impugned proceedings are totally untenable and unsustainable. ( 5 ) SRI V. N. Babu, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned proceedings suffer from incurable legal infirmities. It is stated that no such requirement in law either in the terms and conditions of the supply or under any other procedure where the consent letter is required to be obtained from the original owner of the premises. Learned Standing counsel for the Corporation submits that an appropriate order may be passed by the court on merits. ( 6 ) IN my considered opinion, the fourth; respondent appears to have acted at the behest of the 5th respondent herein. None; of these objections raised in the impugned proceedings were raised in the earlier letter dt. 24-5-2000 requiring the petitioner to comply with the objections stated in the said letter. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is right in drawing the attention of the Court to Condition No. 3. 1 of the terms and conditions of supply that the lawful occupier of the premises is entitled for power supply connection. In the instant case, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not a lawful occupier. Even according to the impugned letter, the lease granted in favour of the petitioner would come to an end only on 1-10-2001. Under those circumstances, the fourth respondent could not have rejected the request of the petitioner for supply of power. No provision of law is brought to my notice under which the fourth respondent could have passed such an order refusing to grant power supply. No condition in the terms and conditions of supply is brought to my notice under whkh such notice could have been issued by the respondents. No provision of law is brought to my notice under which the fourth respondent could have passed such an order refusing to grant power supply. No condition in the terms and conditions of supply is brought to my notice under whkh such notice could have been issued by the respondents. ( 7 ) IT is stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the directions, the respondents have already released the power supply. It is needless to direct that the respondents shall continue the supply of power as long as the petitioner continues to comply with the terms and conditions of supply. ( 8 ) IT is needless to observe that the dispute between the petitioner and the 5th respondent may have to be resolved in a proper forum. It shall be open to the parties to avail such remedies as may be available to them in law. This order shall have no bearing whatsoever upon any of the claims inter se between the petitioner and the 5th respondent. ( 9 ) FOR all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned proceedings are set aside and the writ petition is accordingly disposed of to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.