WP(C) 4963/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sarma, learned Stan ding Counsel, ASEB appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr. Dhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4. The petitioner, by the present petition has challenged the order dated 16th Sept ember, 2011 passed by the Sub-Divisional Engineer, Dhubri Electrical Sub-Divisio n, APDCL (LAZ) disposing of the application filed by the respondent No.4 for ele ctrical connection to the premises in question pursuant to the directions contai ned in the order dated 20th July, 2011 passed in WP(C) No.3298/2011. According to the petitioner, she on receiving the notice dated 25th August, 2011 issued by the Sub-Divisional Engineer, Dhubri Electrical Sub-Division asking he r to appear on 27th August, 2011 for the purpose of hearing in terms of the afor esaid order passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, she on the date fixed, filed an application seeking adjournment on the ground that she has alre ady filed an application seeking review of the order dated 20th July, 2011 passe d in the aforesaid writ petition. According to the petitioner, since no interim order was passed in the said review petition filed by her, the authority procee ded to decide the application filed by the respondent No.4 and passed the impugn ed order dated 16th September, 2011. It is also the contention of the petitione r that had the reasonable opportunity of hearing been given to her by the Sub-Di visional Engineer by postponing the hearing on the application filed by the resp ondent No.4, she could have produce all relevant materials to demonstrate that s uch electrical connection cannot be provided on the basis of the application fil ed by the respondent No.4, which opportunity, according to the petitioner, has n ot been given to her. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner on the backdrop of such assert ion of the petitioner has submitted that both the review petition as well as the present writ petition may be disposed of directing the Sub-Divisional Engineer to give a fresh hearing and to decide the application filed by the respondent No .4 within a fixed period of time. Mr. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, ASEB supporting the order dated 16th Septem ber, 2011 submits that it is not that the petitioner was not given the opportuni ty of being heard but the petitioner, despite receipt of the notice, filed appli cation for adjournment on the ground of filing the review petition and as by 12t h September, 2011, i.e. the date fixed for furnishing the interim order, the pet itioner could not produce any such order, the ASEB authority because of the dire ction contained in the order dated 20th July, 2011 passed in the aforesaid writ petition had to proceed and to take a decision. Mr. Dhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 also supports the su bmission made by the learned Standing Counsel, ASEB. It appears that Review Petition No.98/2011 has been filed by the present petitio ner seeking review of the order dated 20th July, 2011 passed in WP(C) No.3298/20 11. The petitioner was the respondent No.4 in the said writ proceeding. The iss uance and receipt of the notice dated 25th August, 2011 is not in dispute. It al so appears that the petitioner thereafter, filed an application before the Sub-D ivisional Engineer on 8th September, 2011 requesting postponement of considerati on of the application filed by the respondent No.4 on the ground that a review p etition seeking review of the aforesaid order dated 20th July, 2011 has been fil ed. Admittedly, the petitioner could not produce any stay order passed by this Court in the review petition, such order having not been passed, by 12th Septemb er, 2011, i.e. the date fixed by the respondent ASEB. The Sub-Divisional Enginee r thereafter, vide order dated 16th September, 2011 passed the impugned order. The fact remains that no effective hearing could be given to the present petitio ner because of the aforesaid situation, though vide order dated 20th July, 2011 passed in the aforesaid writ petition, the present petitioner was directed to be heard. That being the position, the present writ petition as well as the review petitio n are dismissed directing the Sub-Divisional Engineer, Dhubri Electrical Sub-Div ision, APDCL(LAZ) to hear the petitioner on 10th October, 2011, apart from heari ng the respondent No.4 in the present writ petition and to take a fresh decision in the matter within 1 (one) week thereafter. The Sub-Divisional Engineer need not issue any fresh notice to the parties, as they are directed to appear before the said authority on 10th October, 2011 alongwith the certified copy of the or der passed today. It is open to the petitioner to raise all objections legally tenable before the authority. The writ petition and the review petition are disposed of. No cost.