JUDGMENT A V Sesha Sai, J. - 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. 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 Writ Petition, it is contended by the learned Government Pleader for Energy, learned Government Pleader for Commerce and Industries and the learned Standing Counsel that there is no illegality nor there exists any procedural infirmity in the impugned action and, in the absence of the same, the questioned action is not amenable for any judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that, in respect of the quarry lease being held by the petitioner herein, large sums of money are due to the State Government and, in the said direction, the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology already issued a demand notice for an amount of Rs.8,13,13,085/- and the impugned action is perfectly justified having regard to Clause 17.2 of the General Terms and Conditions of Power Supply. 7. In the above background, this Court is required to examine and adjudicate as to whether the impugned action of disconnection of power supply is sustainable and tenable. 8. According to the petitioner, in respect of the subject Service Connection, there are no dues payable to the respondents 2 and 3. It is also not in dispute that the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, vide demand notice, dated 07.04.2020, and quantified the amount payable by the petitioner herein as Rs.8,13,13,085/-. It is pertinent to note in this context that as against the said demand, raised by the fourth respondent herein, petitioner herein preferred a statutory revision under Rule 35-A of the A.P.Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 on 03.07.2020 and, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said statutory revision is pending consideration before the State Government. Obviously, on the basis of a letter, dated 14.06.2021, of the fourth respondent- Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, the Superintending Engineer-second respondent herein resorted to the impugned action of disconnection of power supply to the petitioner-firm. In this context, it may be appropriate to refer to Section 56 of the Electricity Act, which empowers the authorities to disconnect the power supply for default in payment. Section 56 of the Electricity Act reads as under: Section 56. In this context, it may be appropriate to refer to Section 56 of the Electricity Act, which empowers the authorities to disconnect the power supply for default in payment. Section 56 of the Electricity Act reads as under: Section 56. Disconnection of supply in default of payment - (1) Where any person neglects to pay any charge for electricity or any sum other than a charge for electricity due from him to a licensee or the generating company in respect of supply, transmission or distribution or wheeling of electricity to him, the licensee or the generating company may, after giving not less than fifteen clear days' notice in writing, to such person and without prejudice to his rights to recover such charge or other sum by suit, cut off the supply of electricity and for that purpose cut or disconnect any electric supply line or other works being the property of such licensee or the generating company through which electricity may have been supplied, transmitted, distributed or wheeled and may discontinue the supply until such charge or other sum, together with any expenses incurred by him in cutting off and reconnecting the supply, are paid, but no longer". 9. A reading of the above said provision of law makes it amply clear that, when there is a default in payment of charges, the authorities are empowered to disconnect the electricity supply after giving not less than 15 clear days' notice. Clause 17 of the General Terms and Conditions of Power Supply, which deals with the disconnection of supply, reads as follows: 17. Discontinuance of Supply 17.1. Disconnection due to Eviction 17.1.1. Where, subsequent to commencement of supply of electricity by the Company, orders are passed under any law for evicting the consumer from the Premises to which supply has been given and such eviction is carried out, the Designated Officer of the Company in this regard may discontinue supply of electricity to such Premises and remove its installations and equipment and its action shall not be liable to be questioned as a breach of Agreement or otherwise. He shall without prejudice to the other rights of Company recover from such consumers the expenses incurred for dismantling its installation and removing its equipment. 17.2. He shall without prejudice to the other rights of Company recover from such consumers the expenses incurred for dismantling its installation and removing its equipment. 17.2. Disconnection due to Non-possession of Licence: Where the consumer requires a license or permission from any statutory authority or any authority of the Government to run the business/ industry, or permission for lifting of water wherever necessary for purposes of irrigation, or for any other purpose for which he seeks or availing supply of electricity or for locating such business/ industry/ pump set or any other equipment at the place where he is receiving such supply and where the conduct of his said business/ industry/ activity at such place becomes un-lawful by reasons of his failure to obtain initially or secure the continuance of such license or permission, the Designated Officer of the Company in this regard may, if desired by the concerned statutory or any other competent authority of the Government, after giving notice calling for explanation and after considering the same discontinue supply without forfeiting the rights of the Company under the Agreement with the consumer. Provided that in the cases where specified directions in writing are issued by AP Pollution Control Board in exercise of the powers vested with it under Section 33(A) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974, to disconnect power supply to any industrial unit, the Designated Officer of the Company shall comply with such directions without the necessity of issuance of the notice mentioned in this clause. 10. Sri Y.Nagi Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for APSPDCL, emphatically submits that Clause 17 (2) of the General Terms and Conditions of Power Supply enables and empowers the respondents to resort to the impugned action. A perusal of Clause 17.2, extracted above, in clear and vivid terms, makes it abundantly lucid that where the conduct of the business/industrial activity becomes unlawful for reasons of the failure to obtain initially or secure the continuance of licence or such permission, on the request of the concerned statutory authority or any other competent authority of the Government, after giving notice calling for explanation, the authorities can discontinue the power supply without forfeiting the rights of the company under the agreement with the consumer. In the instant case, it is absolutely not in controversy that when the lease granted in favour of the petitioner herein is still subsisting, it cannot be said that there is no lease or licence in favour of the petitioner as on date. In the considered opinion of this Court, Clause 17.2 of the General Terms and Conditions of Power Supply also would not come to the rescue of the respondents herein to sustain the impugned action. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court has absolutely no scintilla of hesitation nor any shadow of doubt to arrive at the conclusion that the impugned action on the part of the respondents herein cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 11. Accordingly, Writ Petition is allowed, directing the respondents 2 and 3 to restore power supply to the petitioner-firm bearing H.T.Service Connection No.ATP 397 forthwith. However, it is made clear that this order will not come in the way of the fourth respondent-mining authorities to take action as per law. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.