K. Vinod Chandran, J.

The petitioner is aggrieved with the fact that the petitioner's application for electric connection to a petroleum dealership has been declined as per Exhibit P6 for reason of no consent having been issued by the 4th respondent, who is the owner of the property. The officials of the Kerala State Electricity Board [for brevity "KSEB"], which is the 1st respondent herein, turned down the application of the petitioner on the ground that as per clause (2) of Regulation 45 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2014 [for brevity "Supply Code of 2014"] if the applicant is not an owner but an occupier of the premises, they shall furnish a No Objection Certificate from the owner of the premises along with the other documents stipulated therein.

2. The petitioner has challenged Regulation 45(2) also herein. The facts arising in the above case would indicate that a challenge to Regulation 45(2) need not be considered as of now and the writ petition itself can be disposed of on the basis of the peculiar facts arising in the above case.

3. The 4th respondent is admittedly the owner of the property, which, the learned counsel appearing for whom would say, is more than 32 cents which has been leased out and comes to around 55 cents. The primary contention taken is that the superstructure on the land is on the balance 23 cents, which has not been leased out to the petitioner.

4. Be that as it may, by Exhibit P1 the 4th respondent entered into a lease with the 5th respondent with respect to 32 cents of property, the schedule of which clearly indicates the description. Admittedly there is also a clause in the lease agreement, which entitles the lessee to enter into sub-lease with any other. On the basis of the specific entitlement, the 5th respondent had entered into a sub-lease with the petitioner as per Exhibit P2. The sub-lease agreement was as a pre-cursor to the dealership of petroleum products, which the 6th respondent, a partnership firm, intended to take out from the petitioner herein. Lease of appropriate premises is a pre-condition for granting such dealership. This is to ensure that the outlet is not stopped by reason of the default of the authorised dealer; and the petitioner Company could either by themselves or through another operate the retail outlet.

5. Having entered into Exhibit P2, the dealership of petroleum products was also granted to the 6th respondent, a partnership firm. As is indicated in Exhibit P3, the dealership agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the partners of the 6th respondent, who are respectively the respondents 4 and 5. The dealership was also carried out in the said premises from 2005, on which date Exhibit P3 was entered into. The partnership firm having not complied with the terms of the dealership, the dealership itself stood terminated by Exhibit P4 and by virtue of the specific clause in the dealership agreement, the petitioner sought to take over the property and carry on the operations of the petroleum agency. By which time the electricity connection to the premises stood disconnected. It was in such circumstance that the petitioner gave a request for restoration of electric supply to consumer No. 16646 in which the above dealership was carried on and which was declined by Exhibit P6.

6. Evidently, a reading of Exhibit P3 would indicate that the agreement stipulated that on termination of the agreement, on grounds of breach of any of the covenants and stipulations in the agreement, the Corporation would be entitled to, by clause 57 of the said agreement, take vacant and peaceful possession of the premises and enter upon the premises without any hindrance or objection from the dealer and the dealer shall cease to have any right whatsoever to enter or remain on or use the premises or the outfit in any manner. Hence, on termination of the dealership, subject to the condition that the dealer would be entitled to remove all goods, property and effects belongin