GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not sanctioning the power connection to the petitioner s house bearing No. 1-35 (old No. 1-41) of thadvai Thanda, Munagala Mandal, nalgonda District as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to release the power supply to the petitioner. ( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner is that she applied for power supply on 10. 2. 1992 by complying necessary formalities. However, she did not pay the amount towards 3rd wire cost on the basis of b. P. (OPN-CMML), Ms, No. 297 dated 26. 12. 1990 wherein the cost of laying 3rd wire is exempted in respect of harijanawadas, Girijanawadas and Weaker section Colonies for the purpose of releasing domestic connections. While so, the 2nd respondent without considering the above orders by a letter dated 14. 2. 1992 asked the petitioner to pay Rs. 2,300/- towards 3rd wire cost. On 24. 4. 1992 the petitioner addressed a letter to the 2nd respondent requesting him to sanction power supply without insisting for payment of 3rd wire cost. As there was no reply from the respondents, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 12. 4. 1993 to the District collector requesting to release the service connection. ( 3 ) IT is the further case of the petitioner that on 9. 6. 1993, the 3rd respondent asked the petitioner to submit wiring completion-cum-Test report from a licensed electrical contractor and that with great difficulty, the petitioner submitted the electrical wiring certificate on 18. 3. 1994. On 24. 6. 1993, the helpers of the respondent board connected power supply to the petitioner s house saying that the connection was sanctioned. On 27. 6. 1993, the Sub-Inspector, A. P. T. S. , nalgonda along with Assistant Divisional engineer under the instructions of D. E. Miryalaguda and D. E. Suryapet along with other staff conducted raid on the petitioner s house and arrested her husband on the ground that he indulged in pilferage of energy and booked a criminal case which was ended in acquittal in C. C. No. 202 of 1993 on the file of J. F. C. M. Kodad. On the basis of the raid conducted on 27. 6. On the basis of the raid conducted on 27. 6. 1993, a provisional assessment of the energy pilfered was estimated at Rs. 3,794/- and directed the petitioner to pay the same. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner filed WP No. 27341 of 1996 seeking to release power supply to her house. The said writ petition was disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider the representation dated 14. 10. 1996 of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, the petitioner made a representation dated 14. 2. 1997 to the respondent No. 1 requesting him to sanction the power supply. In response to the representation of the petitioner, the respondents addressed a letter dated 4. 3. 1997 asking the petitioner to deposit certain amount for releasing the power supply. The petitioner once again paid Rs. 25/- and Rs. 150/- for service connection and submitted a representation dated 8. 3. 1997 while explaining that she need not pay Rs. 1,000/- towards service line charges since the load is below 250 W. Complaining that inspite of several representations, the respondents did not release the power supply to her, she is before this Court for appropriate relief. ( 4 ) THE respondents have filed their counter admitting the fact that the petitioner applied for service connection. It is stated that during March, 1993 the Thadvai thanda has been electrified under the M. L. A. quota and while electrifying the Thanda, third wires were laid and hence the additional Assistant Engineer, Munagala asked the petitioner to produce electrical wiring certificate so that the service connection could be released and that on 15. 6. 1993 the petitioner wrote a letter to the assistant Engineer stating that it is not possible to produce the electrical wiring certificate as it is a village. It is further submitted that on 27. 6. 1993, a surprise inspection was made on the house of the petitioner and found that the petitioner was indulged in pilferage of energy. The allegation that the Helpers of respondents have connected the service line is denied. It is further stated that in pursuance of the raid conducted on the house of the petitioner, a notice dated 4. 7. 1993 was issued demanding the petitioner to pay Rs. The allegation that the Helpers of respondents have connected the service line is denied. It is further stated that in pursuance of the raid conducted on the house of the petitioner, a notice dated 4. 7. 1993 was issued demanding the petitioner to pay Rs. 3,794/- towards provisional assessment of energy pilfered and that on receiving the above notice, the petitioner filed WP No. 27341 of 1996 and as per the directions of the Court the petitioner was requested to pay the charges for release of domestic service, but the petitioner did not pay any amount. It is submitted that if the premises of an applicant involved in theft of energy, the applicant cannot be extended power supply without realising the charges. It is further stated that if the petitioner is ready to pay the provisional assessment charges and other necessary charges, the respondents are ready to release the power supply and therefore prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed. ( 5 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The main contention of the petitioner is that after issuance of provisional assessment notice, no final assessment was done as required under the terms and conditions of supply and that the b. P. (OTN-COMML), Ms. No. 297 dated 26. 12. 1990 issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 49 and Section 79 (j) of the Electricity Act No. 54 of 1948 read with Clause VI of the Schedule to the indian Electricity Act, 1910 clearly exempts the Harijanawada and Girijanawadas and weaker Section Colonies from paying cost of laying 3rd wire for releasing domestic connections and that the plea of the respondents that the power cannot be supplied on the ground that at the relevant point of time the said B. P. was not in operation cannot be accepted. ( 6 ) IT is not disputed that the house of the petitioner is located in the area other than Girijanawada to contend that the petitioner is not entitled to be exempted from paying 3rd wire cost. When the respondents admit that the house of the petitioner is located in Girijanawada, they are bound by the B. P. Ms. Order and shall provide electric supply without insisting for payment of 3rd wire cost. When the respondents admit that the house of the petitioner is located in Girijanawada, they are bound by the B. P. Ms. Order and shall provide electric supply without insisting for payment of 3rd wire cost. The contention of the respondents that as the petitioner has involved in pilferage of energy and as she did not pay the provisional assessment amount, she is not entitled to power supply cannot be accepted as the respondents are obligated to pass final assessment order as per the terms and conditions of supply and that even after lapse of eight years no final assessment order was passed in respect of the raid conducted on the house of the petitioner on 27. 6. 1993. Moreover, the criminal case booked against the husband of the petitioner ended in acquittal. In the circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that it is a fit case to issue a mandamus directing the respondents to release power supply. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed directing the respondents to provide power supply to the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This order does not preclude the petitioner from taking any action against the respondent as is available under law. No order as to costs.