A.K. GOSWAMI, J.

1. Heard Mr. J.C. Gaur, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. H.K. Sarma, learned standing counsel, APDCL, appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. S. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5.

2. The subject matter of this writ appeal is an order dated 27.02.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Review Petition No.179/2017, arising out of WP(C) No.653/2013. Initially by an order dated 18.09.2017 the writ petition was allowed and on review, the same came to be dismissed.

3. The case set out in the writ petition, briefly, is that the petitioner's father-inlaw Late Radheshyam Saha was a tenant of the respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 and after the death of Radheshyam Saha, the husband of the appellant had stepped into his shoes as a tenant and conducted business in the name and style of M/s Deepika. The husband of the appellant expired on 26.05.2009 leaving behind the appellant and two minor daughters. After the death of her husband, the appellant became a tenant of the respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 and in the month of July, 2009 rent was enhanced. However, subsequently, lawful rent having been refused to be accepted by the landlord and she having been threatened with forceful dispossession, the appellant filed a Title Suit in the Court of learned Munsiff No.2, Kamrup(M), which was registered as Title Suit No.6/2010. In the suit, a counter-claim was filed by the landlord. During the pendency of this suit, electricity connection was disconnected by the landlord, but after filing of a petition alleging violation of the injunction order in force, the landlord restored the electricity connection.

4. Details of the developments in the suit and the counter-claim is not necessary to be decided in this order, as it is the common ground of the learned counsel for the parties that the suit and the counter-claim are yet to be finally decided as the respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 had filed an appeal against an order of remand passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.3, Kamrup, directing the learned Trial Court to decide the suit afresh.

5. In the writ petition prayer was made for a direction to the respondent No.2 i.e. Assistant General Manager, Guwahati Electrical Division (Central), to provide separate electricity connection to the appellant in pursuance of an application dated 26.12.2012 without consent/no objection certificate of landlord on payment of higher amount of security deposit as per the terms and conditions for supply of electricity framed by the Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission. In the said petition, affidavit was filed by respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5. However, no affidavit was filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition was allowed by an order dated 18.09.2017, whereby, a direction was issued to the APDCL that in the event a fresh application is made by the petitioner for providing separate electricity connection, the same shall be considered in accordance with law and necessary separate electricity connection be provided to the appellant subject to the condition that all necessary formalities, as may be prescribed by the APDCL authority, are complied with by the appellant. It was also provided that the APDCL authority shall not insist upon no objection certificate from the landlord. The exercise was directed to be completed within a period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of fresh application from the appellant. Pursuant to the above direction of this Court dated 18.09.2017, the appellant submitted fresh application on 04.10.2017. Attempt was made by the APDCL authorities to provide electric connection consequent upon submission of the said application dated 04.10.2017, but because of stiff resistance made, the order could not be complied with, as a result of which, the Sub-Divisional Engineer, Paltan Bazar Electrical Sub-Division intimated to the Officer-In-Chage of Paltanbazar Police Station by