PROTIK PRAKASH BANERJEE,J. - (1.) Pursuant to my earlier order the report has been filed by the Distribution Licensee. The said report, I am told, was on the basis of a joint inspection where both the private respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and the writ petitioner were present. In the said report which is now taken on record it has been mentioned as follows:- "With due respect, this is to inform you that as per your instruction against the Solemn Order dated 27.07.2018 of Hon'ble Justice Protik Prakash Banerjee an Inspection has been executed on 28.07.2018 at the presmises of Sandip Mukherjee at 20/A K. M. Devi Road. Before starting the Inspection a GD has been lodged in Titagarh P.S. vide No. 2573 dated 28.07.2018. We have started at about 11:30 A.M. in presence of Mr. Barun Kr. Chakraborty, ASI and other 4 Nos. police personnel of Titagarh P.S. and Public respondents No. 5 and 6 and the Petitioner with this family members. The under Signed was present at the spot continuously. While finding out the location of old (existing) cable i.r.o. Baidyanath Mukherjee F/O Sandip Mukherjee we have excavated at 3 (Three) spot on the passage (3 feet 2 inches wide) in question. The cable has been detected at all the pit at a distance 15 inches, 22 Inches and 19 inches respectively from the boundary wall of respondent No. 5 and 6 which has been shown to both the parties. So in the conclusion it may be noted that the cable is lying under the passage (3 feet 2 inches wide)."
(2.) Therefore, it is clear that as on the date when the order of status quo was passed by the civil Court, the present writ petitioner was enjoying electricity through underground cable and such underground cable was beneath the common passage. Because of mechanical and other defects and cable fault such connection was disrupted. Such disruption happened long after the status quo order has been passed. It is nobody's case that the order of status quo passed by the civil Court meant that essential utilities like electricity already being supplied through the underground cable would be disrupted. If today restoration of supply is directed through the same underground cable, the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have no problem. But in the meanwhile a boundary wall has been erected over the common passage by the respondent Nos. 7 and 8. Though the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 have been served, they have chosen to appear. At the same time like a dog in a manger they have been objecting to the supply of electricity through the over head cable by the Distribution Licensee to the writ petitioner's premises which are different from that of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and even respondent Nos. 7 and 8 on the ground that such over head cable would affect the boundary wall of the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 or some portion of their building. 3. I do want to dispose of the writ petition here and now without giving a last chance to be heard to the respondent Nos. 7 and 8. At the same time for the tardiness of the respondent Nos. 7 and 8, the writ petitioner cannot be made to suffer. 4. Accordingly, after considering the facts and circumstances as aforesaid, there shall be an interim order directing the Distribution Licensee to effect supply of electricity through overhead cable regardless of affecting the portions of the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 and regardless of passing over the common passage such that the premises of the writ petitioner gets supply of electricity through over head cable which shall be maintained till the disposal of the writ application and/or further orders whichever is earlier. The concerned police station shall render all assistance to the Distribution Licensee such that such electrification is effected within a period of seven days from the date of communication of this order. The police shall be at liberty to use all lawful force and if necessary to arrest such persons who obstruct in accordance with law. 5. Let the matter appear once again on August 22, 2018 for reporting compliance of this order. 6. Let it be recorded that if the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 do not appear on the next date of hearing it shall be deemed that they have admitted all the allegations contained against them in the writ petition. The allegations contained in the writ petition, it is submitted by Mr. Ghose, learned advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are not admitted so far as the civil litigation is concerned. 7. Let photostat plain copy of the order duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be given to the writ petitioner for communication to the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 directly and other respondents through their learned advocates.;