ORDER : SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J. The above writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondents 5 to 7 in disconnecting the electricity supply to the S.C.No.8431304027253 of Bismillah Water Service Centre, in survey No.438/A2, Nandyal Town, Nandyal District, at the behest of respondents 8 and 9, without considering the petitioner’s representation, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The averments in the affidavit, in brief, are that the land of an extent of Ac.00-45 cents in survey No.438/A2, Nandyal Town, Nandyal District, originally belonged to late Nasyam Hazi Peeran Saheb, S/o Hazi Beeram Saheb, who, in turn, gifted the property to a Mosque i.e. Bakkar Kasab Mosque, by registered gift deed dated 25.04.1961. Thus, the property became the absolute property of the Mosque. Subsequently, the name of the Mosque is changed to Masjid-e-Quresh. Respondent No.9, the development committee, is managing the affairs of the Mosque, and the then General Secretary of respondent No.9 executed a lease deed dated 03.03.2010 in favour of the petitioner for three years and handed over the physical possession to the petitioner. The petitioner established ‘Bismillah Water Service Centre’, by raising a temporary structure. b) An electricity service connection of Lower Tension (L.T.) Category- III already existed in the name of B. Ravi Kumar, in the subject property. The petitioner has been paying monthly consumption charges. When some of the members of respondent No.9 tried to interfere with the petitioner’s possession, the petitioner filed suit O.S.No.128 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal, against two individuals seeking perpetual injunction, and the said suit is pending. c) Be that as it may, the President of respondent No.9 addressed a letter, dated 01.02.2025, to the Executive Engineer, APSPDCL, Nandyal, stating that the property, located in survey No.438/A2 is owned by the Masjid and the petitioner encroached on some part of the property. Accordingly, requested the authority to disconnect the power supply to SC No.8431304027253. The Inspector Auditor of the Wakf Board also addressed a letter dated 10.02.2025 to cancel or disconnect the power supply to service connection No.22404731 and ISC No.27253. Based on the said letters, respondent No.7 issued a notice dated 13.02.2025, directing the petitioner to submit the documents, if any. The service connection was disconnected on 20.02.2025. The Inspector Auditor of the Wakf Board also addressed a letter dated 10.02.2025 to cancel or disconnect the power supply to service connection No.22404731 and ISC No.27253. Based on the said letters, respondent No.7 issued a notice dated 13.02.2025, directing the petitioner to submit the documents, if any. The service connection was disconnected on 20.02.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation dated 20.02.2025 (Ex.P4), for which the Assistant Executive Engineer, Distribution, sent a reply dated 22.02.2025 (Ex.P5) intimating the petitioner that the power supply would be restored on getting a legal opinion. The writ petition was filed on 02.04.2025. 3. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No.8. It was contended, inter alia, that the petitioner obtained an unregistered lease deed on 10.03.2010, purportedly executed by the General Secretary of a self- proclaimed and unauthorized Managing Committee without securing a prior approval from the A.P. State Wakf Board under Section 51 of the Wakf Act 1995. The lease, even going by Ex.P1, filed by the petitioner, expired on 10.03.2013, and it was not renewed thereafter. On receipt of the representation dated 07.02.2025, regarding the petitioner’s unlawful possession, respondent No.8 addressed a letter to respondent No.5, to disconnect the electricity service to SC No.8431304027253, who, in turn, disconnected the power connection on 20.02.2025, after following the procedure. Thereafter, the petitioner vacated the premises voluntarily. A compound wall has been constructed, and a signboard has been erected. The petitioner, under the pretext of seeking restoration of power supply, is attempting to re-enter the subject Wakf property. The Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board is not a party defendant to suit O.S.No.128 of 2010. Any lease of immovable Wakf property without prior sanction of the Wakf Board, as per Section 51 of the Act, is null and void. The petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands. b) The service connection stands in the name of Sri B. Ravi Kumar, a Proprietary concern, Sri Prem Engineering Works, which was released on 15.12.1997. The petitioner is not a registered consumer. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. A separate counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 4 to 7. The Assistant Executive Engineer deposed to the counter affidavit. The service connection stood in the name of Sri B. Ravi Kumar, Proprietary, Sri Prem Engineering Works, and it was released on 15.12.1997. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. A separate counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 4 to 7. The Assistant Executive Engineer deposed to the counter affidavit. The service connection stood in the name of Sri B. Ravi Kumar, Proprietary, Sri Prem Engineering Works, and it was released on 15.12.1997. The petitioner is not a registered consumer and hence, respondents 8 and 9 requested for disconnection of the electricity supply to SC No.8431304027253. A notice dated 13.02.2025 was issued to the petitioner, calling upon him to submit documents, if any. The petitioner failed to submit documents. As per clause 17.2 of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply of Distribution and Retail Supply Licensees, the consumer requires a license or permit from the statutory authority or any other authority concerned or the Government for locating such a business or pump set or any other equipment at the place where he is conducting business. b) Permission under Rule 17(2) of the General Terms and Conditions was not obtained by the petitioner, and he never visited the office before 20.02.2025. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Heard Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioner; Smt. Jyothi Ratna Anumolu, learned Junior standing counsel for respondents 2 and 4 to 7, and Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Khaja Basha, learned standing counsel for respondents 3 and 8. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the contentions as per the averments made in the writ affidavit and counter affidavit, respectively. Consideration: 7. As seen from pleadings and the material on record, the lease deed (Ex.P1), executed on 03.03.2010, by the Secretary and President for Nandyal Masjid-E-Quresh, is for three years. The President of respondent No.9, the committee and respondent No.8, Inspector Auditor of Wakf, addressed two separate letters to respondent No.5 in February 2025, requesting the authority to disconnect the power supply to SC No.8431304027253 in survey No.438/A2. It is also an undisputed fact that a notice dated 13.02.2025 was issued to the petitioner, calling upon him to submit documents, otherwise power supply will be disconnected. However, no documents were submitted by the petitioner before disconnecting the power supply. 8. Admittedly, service connection stood in the name of one B. Ravi Kumar, which was released on 15.12.1997. It is also an undisputed fact that a notice dated 13.02.2025 was issued to the petitioner, calling upon him to submit documents, otherwise power supply will be disconnected. However, no documents were submitted by the petitioner before disconnecting the power supply. 8. Admittedly, service connection stood in the name of one B. Ravi Kumar, which was released on 15.12.1997. As per the record, in pursuance of the lease, the petitioner did not make any application to obtain service connection. 9. It is pertinent to mention here that the averment in para No.7 of the writ affidavit that the service connection is sanctioned in the name of the petitioner is a factually incorrect statement. 10. The petitioner, according to the pleadings, was running a water service centre without having a valid lease from the institution. The lease deed, as seen from the document filed, is for three years, and the same has expired. Of course, this court is not going into the genuineness or otherwise of the lease deed. The said issue is relevant in connection with Clause 17(2) of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply, and hence this Court entered into that arena only for that limited purpose. 9. Of course, this court is not going into the genuineness or otherwise of the lease deed. The said issue is relevant in connection with Clause 17(2) of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply, and hence this Court entered into that arena only for that limited purpose. 9. Clause (17)(2) of the General Terms and Conditions of supply, which is relevant, is extracted herewith: 17.2 Disconnection due to Non-possession of Licence Where the consumer requires a licence or permission from any statutory authority or any authority of the Government to run the business or 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/pumpset 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 unlawful by reasons of his failure to obtain initially or secure the continuous of such licence or permission that 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 case where specified directions in writing are issued by A.P.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. A plain reading of clause 17.2 makes it clear that the consumer requires a license to run the business, and the business becomes unlawful by reason of his failure to obtain a license or permission. The authority, after giving notice, calling for explanation, and after considering the same, discontinues service connection, without forfeiting the rights of the company under the agreement with the consumer. 11. In the case at hand, according to the petitioner, he used to run Bismillah Water Service Centre in the subject property with the above service connection. Except for Ex.P1, the petitioner did not produce any other document, to run the business. 11. In the case at hand, according to the petitioner, he used to run Bismillah Water Service Centre in the subject property with the above service connection. Except for Ex.P1, the petitioner did not produce any other document, to run the business. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the respondents, the lease under Ex.P1 expired in 2013 itself. Apart from that, the petitioner has not produced any other permission from any competent authority to run the service centre. Respondent No.5 issued a notice dated 13.02.2025, calling upon the petitioner to submit documents, if any, within seven days. The petitioner failed to submit the documents, and hence, service was disconnected on 20.02.2025. 12. It is pertinent to mention here that a specific averment was made in the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.8 that after the power was disconnected, the petitioner vacated the premises voluntarily, and a compound wall was constructed. No rejoinder was filed refuting the said averment. Whether the petitioner vacated voluntarily or not is a highly disputed question of fact; this court will not go into that aspect in this writ petition. However, the fact remains, as seen from the photographs, a compound wall was constructed and a signboard was erected. 13. As indicated supra, the power to the subject service connection was disconnected on 20.02.2025, and the petitioner filed the above writ petition on 02.04.2025. No reply was filed by the petitioner disputing the averment that the petitioner vacated the premises voluntarily, made in the counter- affidavit filed by respondent No.8. Invoking clause 17.2 of the General Terms and Conditions, the power to the subject service connection was disconnected. 14. A Writ of Mandamus is discretionary, and the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must be exercised only in certain circumstances, and the same, normally will not be exercised merely prayed for. The existence of a legal right and the corresponding violation of the same is the foundation for invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner must plead and prove the legal right, be it statutory or constitutional and its infringement of rights. 15. In State of U.P. and others Vs. Harish Chandra and others , [ (1996) 9 SCC 309 ] , the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: "10. ... The petitioner must plead and prove the legal right, be it statutory or constitutional and its infringement of rights. 15. In State of U.P. and others Vs. Harish Chandra and others , [ (1996) 9 SCC 309 ] , the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: "10. ... Under the Constitution, a Mandamus can be issued by the court when the applicant establishes that he has a legal right to the performance of legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and the said right was subsisting on the date of the petition." 16. In Union of India Vs. S.B. Vohra , [ (2004) 2 SCC 150 ] , the Hon’ble Apex Court considered a similar issue and held that for issuing a Writ of Mandamus in favour of a person, the person claiming must establish his legal right in himself. Then only a Writ of Mandamus could be issued against a person who has a legal duty to perform, but has failed and/or neglected to do so. 17. In Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Sunder Lal Jain , [ (2008) 2 SCC 280 ] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized the necessity to establish the existence of legal right and its infringement for the grant of Writ of Mandamus, referred the principles stated in the Law of Extraordinary Legal Remedies by F.G. Ferris and F.G. Ferris, Jr. 18. In Mani Subrat Jain Vs. State of Haryana , [ AIR 1977 SC 276 ] , while considering scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as follows: “9. … It is elementary though it is to be restated that no one can ask for a Mandamus without a legal right there must be a judicially enforceable right as well as a legally protected right before one suffering a legal grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when a person is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something or to abstain from doing something. (See Halsbury’s Laws of England 4th Ed. Vol I, paragraph 122); State of Haryana Vs. Subash Chander, AIR 1973 SC 2216 ; Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan, Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed, AIR 1976 SC 578 ) and Ferris Extraordinary Legal Remedies paragraph 198." 19. (See Halsbury’s Laws of England 4th Ed. Vol I, paragraph 122); State of Haryana Vs. Subash Chander, AIR 1973 SC 2216 ; Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan, Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed, AIR 1976 SC 578 ) and Ferris Extraordinary Legal Remedies paragraph 198." 19. In the case at hand, as discussed supra, the petitioner failed to prove the legal right and its infringement to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. 20. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Dilip (Dead) Through Lrs. Vs. Satish and Others , [2022 SCC OnLine SC 810] , dealt with an issue that electricity is a basic amenity and a person cannot be deprived of the same. Electricity cannot be disconnected from a tenant on the ground of failure of the landlord to issue NOC. 21. However, as discussed, supra, in the case at hand, the authority issued notice to the petitioner invoking clause 17.2, calling upon the petitioner to produce documents. But the petitioner failed to produce any document vis-à-vis permission to run the business. Therefore, the said decision does not apply to the fact situation. 22. Apart from that, as discussed supra, the petitioner, as per the averments in the counter affidavit filed by the institution, vacated the premises voluntarily. In the suit filed by the petitioner, O.S.No.128 of 2010 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal, the State Wakf Board is not a party defendant. The petitioner filed a suit against the private individuals. 23. Given the discussion, since the petitioner is out of the site, the service connection is not in the name of the petitioner, and the authority followed the process of law, this Court does not find any illegality in the action of the respondents. There are no merits in the writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.