Aggrieved by the common judgment and order dated 22-4-2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 5166 of 2014, the appellant-association is preferring this writ appeal. While moving the writ appeal, the appellant had sought for an interim order to stay the impugned common judgment and order. After hearing both the learned counsel appearing for both the parties at length, this Court by the order dated 20-6-2015 rejected the prayer for the interim order: no appeal was preferred thereagainst by the appellant-association. As virtually similar arguments were advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the rival parties, it will be apposite to reproduce hereunder the said order:

“As for the prayer for interim order, the learned counsel appearing for the rival parties present today were heard at some length. Before proceeding further, the facts giving rise to this appeal may be briefly noticed. The respondent No. 1 [the petitioner in WP(C) No. 5166/2014] sought for revalidation of the sanctioned load from the Transformer installed in the building in question, which is opposed by the appellant, who claims to be maintaining and managing the said Transformer. Having rejected the objection by the Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. (APDCL), the appellant instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction along with an application for temporary injunction. The injunction application was, however, rejected, against which the appellant preferred an appeal before this Court, which by the order dated 5-3-2013 rejected the appeal. Review Petition No. 78 of 2013 was thereafter filed before this Court. In the meantime, the respondent No. 1 and 2 entered into a tenancy agreement with the respondent No 3 for a period of years with effect from 1-5-2013.”

2. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent No. 1 and 2 therafter moved a writ petition being WP(C) No. 4279/13 before this Court requesting for security which was allowed on 16-8-2013 without giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant though the appellant was a party to that writ petition. Review Petition No. 111/2013 was thereafter filed against the order dated 16-8-2013, which was rejected by the order dated 27-8-2013. This writ appeal is directed against the said order rejecting the Review Petition No. 111/2013, and the same is still pending. In the meantime, Review Petition No. 78/2013 was disposed of vide the order dated 7-3-2014 holding, inter alia, that the respondent No. 1 and 2 had no authority to distribute and/or release power from the Transformer without the NOC from the appellant. The appellant preferred SLP(C) 12601/2014 before the Apex Court, which by the order dated 7-3-2014 dismissed with an observation that the observations contained in the order dated 7-3-2014 should not prejudice the parties at the trial before the Court below. The APDCL thereafter asked the respondent No. 1 and 2 to produce the NOC from the appellant and when they failed to do so, the electricity connection was disconnected on 29-8-2014. This prompted the respondent No. 1 and 2 to file before this Court WP(C) No. 5166/2014 on 25-9-2014 while the respondent No. 3 separately filed WP(C) No. 5245/2014. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both the rival parties, thereafter allowed both the writ petitions in a common order, which is under challenge in this writ appeal.

3. The question to be decided in this appeal is whether the learned Single Judge is correct in directing the APDCL authorities to restore electricity connection to the respondent No. 3 or not. It may be noted that the question as to whether the respondent No. 1 and 2 have any right to distribute and/or release load from the said Transformer which is alleged to be maintained and managed by the appellant-association is a matter pending before a civil court and is yet to be decided one way or the other. The principal contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellant is that the learned Single J