The main legal point established is that a tenant involved in a land ownership dispute is not entitled to a separate electrical connection, and public officials must adhere to regulations and court orders in discharging their duties.

1. This writ application has been filed for quashing the letter as contained in Memo No. 303 dated 09.05.2013 (Annexure-11) issued by respondent no.2, whereby and where under he directed respondent no.3 to take all steps for providing electrical connection in the premises of respondent no.4. Petitioner further prayed for issuance of a direction

commanding the respondents not to act in furtherance of Annnexure-11.

2. It is stated that petitioner acquired various lands including Plot No.4 under Khata no. 67 in Mouza-Sasbera through registered Deed of Indenture executed by the Governor of Bihar. It is stated that later on petitioner through an agreement gave licence to the father of respondent no.4. After the death of said licensee (father of respondent no.4), respondent no.4 started running a Petrol Pump and Car Servicing Station in the name of M/s Premji Ramji Manek on the land in question. It is stated that said license has been

renewed from time to time on payment of rent. It is also stated that petitioner gave electrical and water connection to the aforesaid licensee on payment of charges. It is stated that father of respondent no.4 paid all the rents and charges during his life time.

3. It is submitted that respondent no. 4 has filed a suit vide Title Suit No. 22 of 2003 in the court of Sub-Judge-I, Bermo at Tenughat for declaration of his right, title and possession over the land in question. In the said suit respondent no.4 had filed an application Under Order XXXIX Rules-1 and 2 for granting temporary injunction. It appears that the learned Sub-Judge-I, Bermo at Tenughat had disposed of aforesaid application in the following terms :

" Therefore in the result, the application of the plaintiff U/o-39, Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 C.P.C. is hereby accepted and temporary injunction is granted to the plaintiff. Plaintiff is directed to deposit all the dues of the defendant No.1 and 2 within a month. The plaintiff is also directed to cooperate in quick disposal of the suit. The defendants No.1 and 2 are directed not to disturb the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and not disconnect the water and electric supply. The plaintiff is again directed to

deposit all the dues said above to the defendant No.1 and 2 without fail."

4. Against the said order respondent no.4 had preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Bokaro vide Misc. Appeal No.13 of 2004, which was dismissed vide order dated 17.06.2005 (Annexure-5). Thereafter, respondent no.4 challenged both the orders in this court vide W.P.C. No. 4118 of 2005, which was also dismissed vide order dated 16.12.2005 (Annexure-6). It is stated that aforesaid Title Suit is still pending. It is then stated that during pendency of aforesaid title suit, respondent no.4 has filed an application

before the L.R.D.C. Bermo for mutation, which was allowed by L.R.D.C. Bermo on 06.11.2007 and against that order, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro vide Misc. Appeal No. 110 of 2007. The aforesaid appeal was allowed on 14.09.2010 by the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro and the order of mutation passed by the L.R.D.C. Bermo had been set aside. It appears that thereafter, respondent no.4 had filed an application before the respondent no. 2 and 3 for giving electrical connection in the disputed property. It is worth mentioning that after receiving said application, respondent no.3 vide letter no. 14 dated 23.04.2013 asked the petitioner to give objection if any. The petitioner filed its objection vide letter dated 29.04.2013, wherein it had enclosed all the above orders i.e. order dated 10.06.2004 passed by the Sub-Judge-I, Bermo at Tenughat in Title Suit No. 22 of 2003, order dated 17.06.2005 passed by the District Judge, Bokaro in Misc. Appeal No. 03 of 2004, order dated 16.12.2005 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 4118 of 2005 and order of the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro whereby the mutation order passed by L.R.D.C. had been set aside. It is