JUDGMENT : R.C. Patnaik, J. - This is the story of a lowly man of his misery and suffering which might not have been fallen on him it be were a heavy-weight-having connections or influence. 2. On an application made by the Petitioner, a resident of Village Diha Saibiri in the district of Cuttack, for supply of electricity for his domestic lighting and consumption the Junior Engineer. Electrical Division of the Orissa State Electricity Board, sanctioned supply. The sanction order with the diagram showing drawing up service line has been filed as Annexure-I. Upon the Petitioner satisfying the requirements, service line was provided and electricity was supplied with effect from 20.12-1986. He continued to consume electricity for months and paid the bills. Supply of energy was suddenly disconnected on 8-3-1987. Supply was restored when he drew attention of Junior Engineer, Biridi Section. Supply was again abruptly disconnected on 7-4-1987. He approached the Executive Engineer. Jagatsinghpur Electrical Division (O. P. No. 1) to know the reasons for the discontinuance of supply when he was not in default in payment of the bills for electricity consumed. The Executive Engineer informed him that no direction had been given for discontinuance of supply and he would look into the matter and supply would be restored to him soon. The Petitioner submitted a representation the next day (i.e. 8-4-1987) to opposite party No. 1. The same has been filed as Annexure-4. Therein he questioned how the supply could be disconnected when he was not in default at all and that too without any enquiry; and pleaded for restoration of supply. A further representation was sent to opposite party No. 1 and the S.D.O. Jagatsinghpur Electrical Sub-division, opposite party No. 2, by registered post as per Annexure-5 reiterating the request for restoration of electricity. He asserted therein that he was told by the Executive Engineer that no direction had been given or order passed for discontinuance of supply and requested for an enquiry as to how the line-man could disconnect supply line. On 15-4-1987 by Annexure-6. the S.D.O. 2, Jagatsinghpur Electrical Sub-division directed Rabi Mohapatra, line-man Maindipur Camp to restore the service connection line of the Petitioner immediately and report compliance in person:. The direction is worth-quoting: You are directed to connect the SIC line of Sri K. C. Misra, vill. Dihasahi immediately and report compliance to the undersigned in person. On 15-4-1987 by Annexure-6. the S.D.O. 2, Jagatsinghpur Electrical Sub-division directed Rabi Mohapatra, line-man Maindipur Camp to restore the service connection line of the Petitioner immediately and report compliance in person:. The direction is worth-quoting: You are directed to connect the SIC line of Sri K. C. Misra, vill. Dihasahi immediately and report compliance to the undersigned in person. The supply route can be changed from the other pole on Sunday, i.e. dt. 19-4-1987.? (underlining ours) Ordinarily, therefore, the supply line should have been restored on 15-4-1987 and laying of service line by different mode should have been done on 19-4-1987. Nothing materialised. The marriage of the daughter of the Petitioner was to be solemnised on 18-5-1987. He made a fervent appeal on 14-5-87 by Annexure-7 to the Superintending Engineer, Electrical Circle, Cuttack for restoration of supply at least before the date fixed for marriage. As the line was still not restored and the marriage was to take place on 18-5-1987, in utter distress he moved the Executive Engineer. Chairman of the Board, the Chief Engineer, the Superintending Engineer, the concerned S.D.O. and the Sectional Officer. Copy of the representation sent by registered post has been annexed as Annexure-8. Still nothing happened. He moved this Court on 29-6-1987 and this Court issued notice. 2. Return has been tiled by the Orissa State Electricity Board; the Executive Engineer and the S.D.O. Electrical Sub-division, Jagatsinghpur. The assertion of the Petitioner that on his application supply was sanctioned as per sanction order and the plan as per Annexure-1 is not denied. It is admitted that electricity was supplied to the Petitioner on 20.12-1986. Opposite parties 1 to 3 justify the disconnection of line and discontinuance of supply on the ground that ?the supply line passed over the thatched house of one Adaita Prasad Mishra. Sri Adaita Prasad Mishra by his application dated 14.3-1987 made a complaint that he is inconvenienced in thatching his house on account of the supply line passing over his thatched house and requested that the same should be disconnected?. And one Gadadhar Mishra, who was Reader in English of the S. V. M. College Jagatsinghpur and claimed to be the joint owner of the land, objected ?to on 25-3-1987 to the supply line passing over his land and so too some others. And one Gadadhar Mishra, who was Reader in English of the S. V. M. College Jagatsinghpur and claimed to be the joint owner of the land, objected ?to on 25-3-1987 to the supply line passing over his land and so too some others. Hence, the line was disconnected on 7-4-1987, No doubt the Petitioner made a request for reconnection but having regard to the objection raised by co-owners and the provisions contained in regulation 4 (e) of the General Conditions of Supply Regulation, 1981 framed by the Orissa State Electricity Board in exercise of powers conferred u/s 790 and (k) read with Section 49 of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948,? it was not possible to provide electric supply to the Petitioner unless he was able to obtain the way leave or license from the owners of the land or arrange for diversion of the service line?. Opposite parties 1 to 3, therefore, have owned up disconnection of line and discontinuance of supply. The reasons impelling the action were objections raised by some people and the provisions contained in Regulation 4 (e). In the rejoinder the Petitioner has refuted that the service line passed over the thatched house of Adaita prasad Misra. He has stated that before providing service line, drawing was prepared, enquiry was conducted and estimate was made. Service line was drawn over a passage 20 kadis in width. He was, however, not asked about the various complaints made and he suffered for months. He is prepared to bear the cost of supply of electricity by laying a cable underground along the passage used by him. Regulation 4 (e) reads as under: When the consumer?s premises have no frontage or a street and the service line from the Board?s mains have to go upon, over or under the adjoining premises of any other persons and whether or not the adjoining premisses be owned jointly by the consumer and such other persons) the consumer shall arrange at his own expenses for any necessary wayleave, license or sanction. The Board shall not be Bound to afford supply unti1 such way-leave or sanction is granted. Any extra expenditure incurred in placing the service line in accordance with the terms of the way-leave, licence or sanction shall be borne by the consumer. The Board shall not be Bound to afford supply unti1 such way-leave or sanction is granted. Any extra expenditure incurred in placing the service line in accordance with the terms of the way-leave, licence or sanction shall be borne by the consumer. In the event of the way-leave, licence or sanction being cancelled of withdrawn, the consumer shall at his own cost arrange for any diversion of the service line or the provision of any new service Hoe thus rendered necessary failing which the supply shall, he disconnected and supply line shall be removed. It shall be the responsibility of the consumer to ensure the validity or adequacy of way-leave licence or sanction obtained by him. The sentences underlined go to indicate that the first sentence of Clause (a) applies before the service line is provided and supply is made. The second portion underlined makes provision for contingencies that would arise in the event of the wayleave, licence or sanction being cancelled or withdrawn. - It does not postulate that on way-leave, licence or sanction being cancelled or withdrawn, the Board shall forthwith disconnect the supply and remove the supply line. That ensure only when the consumer fails to arrange for a diversion of the service line or provision of any new service line at his own cost. Regulation 9 is important in this connection and to the extent necessary is extracted ; ?Service-line: (a) ?The Engineer of the Board, on being satisfied that power was available and all preconditions for supply of powers were satisfied, shall Inspect the premises and fix the point of entry of the service line... (b) Before the work of laying the service line is taken up, consumer shall pay in full the bill for the cost of laying the service line prepared by the Engineer in accordance with the rates in force. (c) Upon compliance of all conditions, the Board shall provide service line.... This regulation unmistakably shows that service line is provided and supply is made upon compliance of all conditions and satisfaction of all pre-conditions for supply of power including the satisfaction as to the requirements of Clause (e) of Regulation 4. If Clause (e) is not satisfied it is open to the Board to refuse to provide service line and supply power. If Clause (e) is not satisfied it is open to the Board to refuse to provide service line and supply power. But it is not permissible to the Board that having provided the service line and supplied power, to disconnect the line and discontinue supply on a fine morning without informing the consumer or without giving him notice. 3. Power was supplied to the Petitioner on 20-12-1986. Prima facie, therefore, it may be presumed that the authorities were satisfied about compliance of regulation 4 (e). There was no objection for three months. It is not the opposite parties?s case that any objection was raised at the time the Engineer of the Board inspected the premises, drew the plan for providing service line or provided the service line. There was no protest from the persons who filed the complaint later on. At that point of time, therefore, there was acquiescence on their part. Therefore, that may be construed as implied way-leave, sanction or licence, assuming that the service line was drawn over the thatched house of the objector Adaita or the land of others. Assuming for a moment that the service line was provided and supply was made by mistake in ignorance or in contravention of Regulation 4 (e), the course was not instant or about disconnection upon objection. The objection or complaint may be frivolous, unfounded or even malicious. The line having been provided and the Supply made, there would arise a prima facie presumption that the Engineer of the Board was satisfied that all pre-conditions for supply of power were satisfied and all conditions were complied with by the consumer. The burden, therefore, lay on the complainant or the objector to satisfy the authorities that regulation 4 (e) bad been contravened. Not by the mere raising of the finger by the objector should the supply line be snapped. An enquiry is postulated before supply is made. An enquiry, a fortiori, is a must to disconnect the service line and discontinue supply. As regulation 4 (e) itself provides that the authority is satisfied that way-leave, licence or sanction is necessary, but has not been obtained, the consumer may be asked to follow alternative course provided therein and only on his failure to do so, should the supply line be disconnected. As regulation 4 (e) itself provides that the authority is satisfied that way-leave, licence or sanction is necessary, but has not been obtained, the consumer may be asked to follow alternative course provided therein and only on his failure to do so, should the supply line be disconnected. What shall apply to a situation where wayleave, licence or sanction is withdrawn or cancelled would equally apply where the authorities are satisfied that there was no initial way-leave, licence or sanction. 4. The next question is of seminal importance. Can the line be disconnected or supply be discontinued because there was complaint or objection from some quarters that the line had been drawn over his land or house without informing the consumer and without hearing him? Our answer is an emphatic ?no?. We have held that where objection or complaint is made, an enquiry is mandatory disconnection of line and discontinuance of supply visit the consumer with consider able inconvenience and suffering. Where he is not in default disconnection of the line and discontinuance of supply prejudicially affect him. Therefore, a fair play in action has to be ensured. So, it follows that the audi alterem partem rule has to be injected to ensure justice. True it is that to the audi alterem partem rule there are some exceptions, namely, where importing the right to ?be heard has the effect of paralysing the administrative process or the need for promptitude or the urgency of the situation. As was observed in Menaka Gandhi?s casel, ?the rule is of vital importance in the field of adminis- trative law and it must not be jettisoned save in very exceptional circumstances where compulsive necessity so demands. Discontinuance of supply caused directly or indirectly by any mechanical breakdown or damage to the transmission line, apparatus and equipment or due to force measure does not attract the principle of audi alterem partem. In the case of the Petitioner there was no such situation applying the exclusionary rule. Nobody alleged that the drawing of the line in the manner it had been done was a source of imminent danger to life or property so that no delay could be brooked and instant action was caned for. The complaint as disclosed in the return was that Adaita Prasad Misra ?was inconvenienced in thatching his house on account of the supply line passing over his house?. The complaint as disclosed in the return was that Adaita Prasad Misra ?was inconvenienced in thatching his house on account of the supply line passing over his house?. There was no compulsive necessity, therefore, to disconnect the line and discontinue supply without informing the consumer and without conducting an enquiry. 5. Electricity in present-day-life is no more a luxury but a necessity, may, it is indispensable once one gets used to it. One expected, therefore, an attitude of empathy from the Orissa State Electricity Board, a public utility concern. The Petitioner? frantically appealed to all that mattered from the Chairman of the Board at the top down to the Sectional Officer of the concerned Section. He knocked at different doors. One has to put oneself in the place of the Petitioner to visualise the inconvenience, suffering and distress that he may have passed through till today for about seven months and what callousness on the part of the authorities to his entreaties for reconnection as the marriage of the daughter was to be held on 18-5-1987. How would one feel when line is disconnected and supply discontinued a few days before the marriage of his daughter and his entreaties for reconnect ion does not move the authority especially when there has been no force majeure or mechanical break-down or he is not in default? The Petitioner pleaded that the Sub-divisional Officer on his motion directed the line-man to reconnect the service line forthwith and to report compliance in person. The communication was sent through the Petitioner to the line-man but nothing happened. This assertion of the Petitioner, as we have already noted, has not been controverted. What intervened ? and who interposed to stop its course? We have feeling that there was much more to it than meets the eye. In course of argument the teamed Advocate-General appearing for opposite parties 1 to 3 contended that disconnection of tine and discontinuance of supply were events of the past. For reconnection the Petitioner should satisfy regulation 4 (e). The argument does not appeal to us. . The initial disconnection was high-handed and offended the principles of natural justice. No word would be harsh enough to condemn the arbitrary action and we disapprove further the utter callousness of the authorities to the plight of the Petitioner. For reconnection the Petitioner should satisfy regulation 4 (e). The argument does not appeal to us. . The initial disconnection was high-handed and offended the principles of natural justice. No word would be harsh enough to condemn the arbitrary action and we disapprove further the utter callousness of the authorities to the plight of the Petitioner. They could have suggested an alternative mode so that pending resolution of the controversy the Petitioner had supply of electricity. 6. Ordinarily by way of setting the wrong right, we would have restored status quo ante by directing the opposite parties to restore the service line and supply electricity. But the Petitioner in his rejoinder and his counsel during argument presented an alternative mode by which electricity can be supplied, i.e., by laying a cable under ground at his own cost along the lane used by him as passage. The Sub-divisional Officer also had suggested an alternative made, i.e., providing service line from another pole (see Annexure-6). The opposite parties should, therefore, .come forward and present a proposal to the Petitioner within ten days hence and on the Petitioner depositing the expenses to be incurred, energy should be supplied within two weeks from the date of compliance. 7. The Petitioner must have passed through untold suffering, an agonising time. He should be compensated, though no amount of money can make him relieve the past seven months happily and in contentment. We, therefore, direct that a token damage .of Rs. 1.000/- (Rupees one thousand) shall be paid by the opposite parties to the Petitioner within a month. 8. The writ application is accordingly allowed. Let a writ of mandamus issue to opposite parties 1 to 3. V. Gopalaswamy, J. 9. I agree. Final Result : Allowed