By the Court.—We have heard Sri Brijesh Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Baleshwar Chaturvedi, who has accepted notice on behalf of respondents.

2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, writ petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage itself without calling for a counter-affidavit.

3. Facts lie in a narrow campus and relevant for the purposes of the case are as under :

The petitioner is a tenant of House No. 78-F/22, Katar Shahid, Indira Chowk, Moradabad. There is a dispute going on with the landlord and on his refusal to accept rent, the petitioner is depositing the same under Section 30 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. On account of ongoing dispute and in order to create pressure upon the petitioner-tenant to vacate the accommodation, the landlord got the supply of electric energy disconnected. It appears that thereafter the petitioner made an application on the prescribed form for grant of new electricity connection and submitted it in the office of respondent No. 4 on 23.9.2013 but the same was returned back to the petitioner with endorsement that since the landlord has refused to give no objection to the electricity connection as such the same cannot be provided. Thereafter, the petitioner made various representations and visited the office of respondent No. 4 but when no action has been taken and he has not been granted new connection for supply of electrical energy, he has approached this Court by filing writ petition seeking the following main reliefs :

(I) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 4 to accept the Form of the petitioner for installation of new electric meter in his name premises House No. 78-F/22, Katar Shahid Indra Chowk, Moradabad and supply electricity to the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that supply of electricity monopolised by U.P. Power Corporation is essential for life and it is impossible to live without electricity and the respondents are not justified in refusing to grant new electricity connection in the name of the petitioner only on the ground that landlord with whom there is a dispute has refused to give no objection certificate.

5. Sri Baleshwar Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that clause 4.4 of U.P. Electricity Supply Code 2005, hereinafter referred to as Code 2005, provides for owners consent for getting new supply connection and the petitioner has rightly been denied new connection for want of consent from the landlord of the premises in dispute. He has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ravi Shanker Giri v. Sub-Divisional Officer, U.P. Power Corporation Limited and others, 2007(6) ADJ 665 (DB) and another Division Bench judgment dated 3.1.2014 rendered in Writ Petition No. 71425 of 2013, Tanveer Azam v. State of U.P. and others, wherein it has been held that unless there is a consent of the owner of the premises which requirement has to be fulfilled in terms of Code 2005, electricity connection cannot be granted.

6. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

7. Electrical undertakings have acquired the character of public utility by reason of their monopolistic position. The State in exercise of its legislative power has enacted the Electricity Act 2003 to consolidate the laws relating to generation, transmission, distribution, trading and use of electricity and generally for taking measures conducive to development of electricity industry as also to protect the interest of consumers and supply of electricity to all areas. The same is reflected from the statement of objects and reasons of Electricity Act, 2003.

8. Section 42 of the Act deals with duties of distribution licensee. The said section reads as under :

‘’42. Duties of distribution licensee and open access.—(1) it shall be a duty of a distribution licensee to develop and maint