MC 2976/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C. UPADHYAY JUDGMENT AND ORDER(ORAL) 1. I have heard Mr. B.R. Dey, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr.P. Sen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. S. Shyam, learned counsel representing respondent No.5. 2. The order I propose to pass in this Misc. Case, in my view notice to the officials’ of the Assam State Electricity Board and the Assam Power Distributio n Company Ltd. is not considered essential. The petitioner has filed this Misc. application praying for quashing of the impugned order dated 18.10.2011 passed b y the Sub-Divisional Engineer, Dhubri Electrical Division, APDCL, LAZ, Dhubri, i n terms of the direction of this High Court, in Review Petition No.98/2011 arisi ng out of W.P.(C) No.3298 of 2011. In terms of the impugned order the respondent No.5 was allowed to continue the process of getting the electricity service con nection. 3. This Misc. application filed by the petitioner-respondent in CRP No.123 of 2007 reveals that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 as petitioner herein in this Misc. Case together with the respondent Nos.2 to 4 and one Smti. Anuradha Saha, her sister instituted Title Suit No.234 of 1989 in the Court of Munsiff No.1, Dh ubri as plaintiff against Sri Nripen Saikia (respondent No.5 in this Misc. Case) and Biresh Chandra Podar, defendants, praying for a declaratory decree and evic tion. 4. The opposite party claimed to be tenant under the defendant No.2 Shri Bi resh Chandra Poddar, who was the owner of the property. 5. Accordingly, T.S. No.234 of 1989 was decreed. Being aggrieved by the and order, the petitioner-opposite party preferred Title Appeal No.27 of 2006 in th e Court of learned Civil Judge, Dhubri. 6. During the pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner-opposite party le arnt from the reliable source that one of the plaintiff/Smti. Anuradha Saha, as well as defendant No.2, Biresh Chandra Podar had died however their heirs were n ot substituted and the decree was passed against dead person. Further more, the power of attorney executed by the respondents-petitioners in favour of the respo ndent No1-petitioner had also been cancelled during the pendency of the Title Su it No.5 of 2002. 7. After having learnt about the aforesaid facts, the respondent No.5, file d two applications in T.A. No.27 of 2006, one under Order 13 Rule 10 CPC and ano ther under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, praying for adducing additional evidence. Howev er, by the common order dated 21.3.2007 impugned in the C.R.P. No.123 of 2007, b oth the applications were rejected. The revision was filed by the petitioner-opp osite party challenging the aforesaid impugned order passed by the appellate Cou rt. 8. In this Misc. application, filed by the respondents-petitioners, it has been stated that the tenanted premises, where respondent No.5 is residing, is in a dilapidated condition and respondent No.5, entered into premises as tenant wi thout there being any electricity connection. 9. The petitioner stated that the respondent No.5 after a long time on 4.5. 2010, without the consent of the petitioners, behind their back, applied for ele ctricity connection in the premises, by obtaining NOC from the Municipal Board a nd Development Authority. The petitioner No.1 filed an objection before the Muni cipal Board and the Development Authority and accordingly, the NOC was also canc elled. The petitioner filed objection before the Sub Divisional Officer, APDCL, Dhubri Electical Division, Gauripur, Dhubri. Accordingly, the application for se rvice connection filed by the respondent No.5 was rejected. Being aggrieved, the respondent No.5 filed the writ petition before this Court praying for direction upon the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to provide electricity connection wherein, the p etitioner No.1 was impleaded as respondent No.4 in the said writ petition. The w rit petition bearing W.P.(C) No.3298 of 2011 was disposed of by this Court on 20 .7.2011 with a direction to the respondent, ASEB Authority to pass necessary ord er relating to the electrical connection to be provided to the premises of the p etitioner No.5 subject to the fulfillment of the condition stipulated for the pu rpose. 10. The petitioner No.1 after the aforesaid order preferred a review petitio n No.98/2011 before this Court. However, during the pendency of the Review Petit ion, the respondent No.3, the Sub-Divisional Engineer, Dhubri, Electrical Divisi on passed an order in favour of the respondent No.5 requesting him to continue f urther process, for getting electricity service connection in his premises. Bein g aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner No.1 preferred a writ petitio n bearing No.W.P.(C) No.49634 of 2011 challenging the order passed by the respon dent No.3, Sub Divisional Engineer, Dhubri Electical Division, APDCL, LAZ on 16. 9.2011. 11. This Court after hearing both the parties disposed of both the W.P.(C) N o.4963 of 2011 as well as Review Petition No.98 of 2011, with a direction to tak e a fresh decision after hearing the parties in that regard. The respondent No.3 , after hearing the parties passed the following order on 18.10.2011 which has b een impugned in the Misc. Application, which reads as follows - ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED OFFICE OF THE SUB-DIVISIONAL ENGINEER DHUBRI ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION : DHUBRI ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----- NO.APDCL/DESD/E-9/2011-12/ Dated 18.10.2011 O R D E R In view of the direction of the Hon’ble High Court order dated 27.9.2011 passed in Review Petition No.98/2011, both the party appeared before me on 10.10.2011 a nd Anuradha Saha, respondent No.4 represented by her son Sri Arun Saha and her l earned Counsel Sri Dibakar Ghosh and Sri Dinesh Choudhury submitted written obje ction andvehemently objected to provide electricity connection as per clause No. 3.6.2 of Terms and Conditions, Regulation notified by Assam Electricity Regulato ry commission on various grounds including obtaining NOC of municipality as well as ownership/title of the disputed premises. I is admitted by both party that the subject of title of the ownership of the pr emises is still under final disposal of Civil Court which is pending before Hon’ ble Court. Electricity is an essential supply and every person has right to enjoy under man y circumstances including the circumstances provided under clause No.3.6.2 menti oned above which has been formulated to make provision of temporary electric sup ply to such premises on certain condition where any situation arise the APDCL wi ll disconnect it without putting any question thereof. The circumstances to make provision of electricity to the petitioner already obs erved by Hon’ble High Court and directed me to make provision of electricity und er 3.6.2 of regulation if the petitioner full fills the condition; in fact the p etitioner complied with all the conditions. Be it noted that if the civil court executed any decree of eviction from the sui t land then electricity supply will also be withdrawn which remain unquestioned by the petitioner who executed undertaking thereof. Hence the objection of respo ndent No.4 is dismissed and Sri Nripen Saikia, son of Late Nabin Saikia, Sen Par a is allowed to continue the process of getting the electricity service connecti on. By Order Sub-Divisional Engineer, Dhubri Electrical Sub-Division, APDCL, L AZ, Dhubri. Memo No. APDLC/DESD/E-9/2011-12/417(a) Copy to : 1. The Asstt. General Manager, Dhubri Electrical Division, APDCL, LAZ, Gaur ipur for favour of kind information. 2. Sri Nripen Saikia, Son of Late Nabin Saikia, Sen Para, Dhubri for inform ation. 3. Smt. Anuradha Saha, Daughter of Late Khetra Mn. Saha, A.K. Ghosh Road, W /N-16, Sen Para, Dhubri for information. Sd/- Illegible Sub-Divisional Engineer, Dhubri Electrical Sub-Division. 12. Mr. B.R. Dey, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submi ts that the petitioner is a defaulter and he is liable to be evicted from the p remises and he has no legally enforceable and/or vested right to claim electrici ty connection either as per terms of tenancy or otherwise. Therefore, the impugn ed order passed by the Sub-Divisional Engineer, Dhubri Electrical Division, APDC L, LAZ, respondent No.3 is liable to be set aside and quashed. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners further pointed out that the impugne d order passed by the respondent No.3, to allow the respondent 5 to continue the process of getting electricity service connection is arbitrary, illegal and aga inst the provision of law and contrary to the direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No.4963 of 2011 and Review Petition No.98 of 2011 dated 20.7.2011. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioners further pointed out that since the d ecree has been passed by the Trial Court for eviction of the respondent No.5 and the matter is now pending before the appellate Court, the respondent authoritie s ought not to have decided to allow the process for getting electricity connect ion in favour of the respondent No.5. The petitioner further begs to state that since there was no electricity connection in the said premises, the respondent N o.5 cannot claim electricity. Therefore the claimant respondent No.5 is in clear disregard of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972. 15. Mr. Dey, learned senior counsel for the petitioners by referring to the provision of Section 6 of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972, submits that the land owner is entitled to maintain the existing essential supplies and services including supply of electricity. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Authority concerned is illegal and arbitrary, since there was no electric ity in the tenanted premises. 16. Mr. S. Shyam, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 specifically point ed out that electricity today is an essential supply. A private individual havin g no ownership right also may apply for temporary connection and the electricity department in terms of the provision of the Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulation, 2004, may allow under the clause 3.6.2 a new connection for domestic and single phase non-domestic categories, even if the applicant is una ble to provide the proof of ownership of land/legal occupation of the premises. The licensee may waive such requirement and record, in writing, the reasons ther eof. However, in such cases, the security deposit to be paid by the consumers sh all be equal to (3) three times the security deposit other wise chargeable to th e consumer. 17. Mr. Shyam, learned counsel by referring the aforesaid provision pointed out that it is within the scope and jurisdiction of the powers of the Electricit y Board to supply electricity to any person under the Regulation if the Authorit y is satisfied and the petitioners fulfills certain conditions requisite for sup ply of electricity. 18. Mr. Shyam, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 further pointed out t hat the Misc. Case filed by the petitioners is not maintainable in law as well a s in facts, since the order was passed by the Sub-Divisional Engineer, Dhubri El ectrical Division, APDCL, LAZ, in terms of the direction passed in a writ procee ding. Further, there is scope to relate the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Engineer, Dhubri Electrical Division, APDCL, LAZ, with the present Civil Revisio n Petition CRP 123 of 2007 filed by the respondent No.5. He further pointed out that other respondents in the Misc. application are the officials of the State E lectricity Board, who are not at all connected with the litigation pending betwe en the parties. 19. Now the question which arises for consideration is to whether the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Engineer, Dhubri Electrical Division, APDCL, LAZ, i n a Misc. Case passed by the Court can be a subject matter of challenge in a pen ding CRP No.123 of 2007. 20. Apparently, the order dated 18.10.2011 has been passed by the Sub-Divisi onal Engineer, Dhubri Electrical Division, APDCL, LAZ, in terms of the direction issued by the writ court. Therefore, if any cause of action has arisen to chall enge such order, it cannot be raised at least by filing this Misc. Case with an innocuous prayer, in CRP No.123 of 2007, pending before this Court in an unconne cted matter filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 21. Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is over Courts and Tribunals and such power does not extend to orders passed in exercise of administrative ju risdiction. Aggrieved party may have other remedy available, but this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the impugned order under Article 227 of the Co nstitution. 22. In my view there is no scope to entertain the instant Misc. application challenging the action of the Electricity Department permitting electric connect ion in the disputed premises. The executive order passed by the Sub-Divisional E ngineer, Dhubri Electrical Division, APDCL, LAZ, is not amenable to the jurisdic tion of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. 23. Therefore, in my considered view the Misc. application filed by the peti tioners is devoid of merit and accordingly it stands dismissed. I pass no order as to cost.