C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.

1. Since the issue involved in both these cases are more or less similar, they are considered together and disposed of through this common judgment.

2. In WP(C). No. 25108/13 challenge is against disconnection of electric supply provided to the 1st floor portion of petitioner's residential building, which is assigned separate building number as VIII-569/A. In the building in question there existed an electric connection since the year 1995, which was given by drawing service wire from a post situated on the boundary of the 5th respondent's property. According to the petitioner, the 1st floor was constructed in the year 2013. Ext.P2 is the ownership certificate and Ext.P3 is the Tax Receipt issued by the Grama Panchayat with respect to the First Floor. On 23.7.2013 a separate electric connection was provided to the 1st floor portion. But on 12.8.2013 the 4th respondent had disconnected the supply and dismantled the Meter and other equipments, without issuing any notice to the petitioner. Despite Exts.P5 and P6 requests, the supply was not restored. When approached under the Right to Information Act, Ext.P7 reply was issued stating that the disconnection was for the reason that no consent was obtained from the 5th respondent for drawing service wire from the post situated in his property. The petitioner was also intimated to take necessary steps for getting permission from the Additional District Magistrate for drawing of the line.

3. Contention of the petitioner is that he was enjoying a service connection provided to the said building since the year 1995 through service wire drawn from the very same post and therefore no consent is required for drawing one more service wire from the said post, which is not in any manner crossing property of the 5th respondent. Respondents 1 to 4 were perfectly justified in exercising powers vested under Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act in drawing of the service wire. They were not resisted or objected by the 5th respondent in any manner at the time of drawing the line. Under such circumstances the petitioner is approaching this court seeking appropriate directions for restoration of the connection.

4. Petitioner in WP(C).26660/13 is the 5th respondent in WP(C).No.25108/13. Challenge is against Ext.P5 notice issued by the 4th respondent requiring him to comply with conditions stipulated in the Board order, BO (FB) (Genl) 510/2010, dated 24.2.2010, (hereinafter referred as 'the Board Order') failing which it is informed that the separate connection provided to the 1st floor portion of his building will be dismantled.

5. In the statement filed on behalf of the Board in WP(C). 25108/13 it is mentioned that, the 4th respondent had received a lawyer notice on behalf of the 5th respondent threatening legal action for drawing of the service wire from a post situated in his property without obtaining his consent. The connection was dismantled by the Overseer concerned, when it was revealed that the petitioner had mislead the Board by misrepresenting that the post is situated in his property, at the time when the estimate was prepared. It is mentioned that, when the complaint submitted by the petitioner before the Additional District Magistrate was forwarded to the Assistant Executive Engineer for taking necessary action, the petitioner was requested to fulfil the requisite formalities for referring the matter for adjudication under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act. But during inspection the 4th respondent became convinced that the connection was given not in conformity with the Board Order, to the extent that no separate service connection could have been provided to the upstair portion because there was no separate entrance from outside and there was no separate wiring. Hence the connection in question was not given legally and it cannot be restored, is the contention. It is evident that Ext.P5 notice impugned in WP(C).No.25108/2013 was also issued for the very