IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22455 of 2011 Mrs. Parul Singh, Wife Of Sri Sumit Singh, D/O Shri Ashok Singh, Director, Lead Institute of Management and Entrepreneurship (Lime), Resident of Ground Floor, B-201, Shri Krishna Puri, P.S.:Shri Krishna Puri, District: Patna. . . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. Bihar State Electricity Board through its Secretary, Bihar, Patna. 2. Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Chief Engineer, Bihar State Electricity Board, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Patliputra, Patna. 5. The Assistant Engineer, Electric Supply Sub- Division, S.K. Puri, Patna. 6. Smt. Sunetra Ray, resident of B-201, Shri Krishna Puri, P.S.:Shri Krishna Puri, District: Patna. . . . . . Respondents. ---------------------------------- 2/ 23.12.2011 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make Sunetra Ray, as respondent no.6 in course of the day. The petitioner has taken ground floor of B/201 in S.K.Puri, Patna on rent from one Sri Ranjan Basu and Sitanshu Basu under registered deed dated 16.07.2010 for a period of three years. The petitioner has a MBA degree, and is running an Institute in the name of “Lead Institute of Management Entrepreneurship”. The Institute runs Management College for BCA, BBA, MBA affiliated to Magadh University and Bharathiar University having due approval of U.G.C. The petitioner submits that on her request, a new electric connection was installed on 26.11.2011 by the order of respondent no.4. The electric connection of the petitioner was disconnected on 03.12.2011, on representation of one Sunetra Ray, who claims to be the co-sharer of the premises. The petitioner submits that no electric dues stand in her name. 2 Counsel for the Board seeks time to file counter affidavit. As the issue can be disposed of at the stage of admission itself, I do not see the requirement of counter affidavit. In this view of the matter, I propose to pass the following orders: In case, if there is no electric due against the petitioner, the respondent Board would restore the electric connection. The Executive Engineer would grant an opportunity, both to the petitioner as well as newly added respondent, Sunetra Ray to place their case before him. Thereafter respondent no.4 would pass appropriate order in respect of the issue in question. Subject to the decision of respondent no.4, as stated above, the electric connection would be restored. This application stands disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)