WP(C) 1712/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bhattacharjee, l earned Standing Counsel, ASEB appearing for all the respondents. The petitioner by the present petition is praying for a direction to the ASEB au thority to provide commercial connection to the premises, which, according to th e petitioner, belongs to him. It is the case of the petitioner that though he f iled an application for providing the commercial connection to the premises, the same has not been provided to him despite fulfilling all the requirements. The respondents ASEB in the affidavit-in-opposition filed has contended that suc h application filed by the petitioner could not be considered due to various ord ers including the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Tinsukia di recting the Assistant Executive Engineer, ASEB, Tinsukia not to provide electric al connection pursuant to the application made by the petitioner without the per mission of the actual owner. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the p etitioner has filed the application by fulfilling all the requirements under the provisions of the Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission (Distribution Code) R egulation, 2004 (in short, 2004 Regulation ), the authority cannot deny the ele ctrical connection to the petitioner’s premises on the ground that some person h as raised certain objection. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the n ecessary direction may be issued to the respondent authorities. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel, ASEB, on the other hand, has submit ted that though the petitioner filed the application for providing electrical co nnection to the premises in question, since a dispute has been raised by another person relating to the ownership of the land, the said connection could not be provided, more so in view of the order dated 14th July, 2009 passed by the Sub-D ivisional Officer (Sadar), Tinsukia on the body of the application dated 13th Ju ly, 2009 filed by one Smti. Sarjo Devi Bahety directing the Assistant Executive Engineer, ASEB not to provide connection without permission of the actual owner. It has also been submitted that the ASEB cannot ascertain who is the actual ow ner of the premises in question. The learned Standing Counsel, however, referring to the provision of the 2004 Re gulation has submitted that there are certain provisions under which the connect ion can even be provided to the occupier of the premises, subject to furnishing security deposit equal to 3 (three) times of the normal security deposit chargea ble, apart from the load security and in case the petitioner approaches the ASEB authority, the same shall definitely be considered and also upon hearing the sa id Smti. Saroj Devi Bahety. The learned counsel for the petitioner in view of such submission made by the le arned Standing Counsel, ASEB has submitted that the petitioner shall file a fres h application before the authority in that regard, which may directed to be cons idered accordingly. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the p arties, the present petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the ASEB authority for providing the electricity connection to the p remises in question and in case such approach is made, the respondent authority shall definitely consider and pass necessary order thereof with due notice to Sm ti. Saroj Devi Bahety. The said exercise is directed to be completed within a p eriod of 2 (two) months from the date of submission of such application. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.