Judgment Satyabrata Sinha, J. 1. Heard learned counsel, for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, 2. In this application, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for issuance of a Writ of or in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent Bally Municipality to give separate water connection. 3. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. 4. The petitioner is a tenant in the premises situate within Bally Municipality. There appears to be some dispute with his landlord. A civil suit is pending. The petitioner had earlier filed an application against the landlord also before the Rent Controller. Ultimately, the said matter came to this Court, and by an order dated 29.4.93, G. R. Bhattacharjee, J. in Criminal Revision No.2 of 1993, inter alia, directed as follows: "The tenant/opposite party herein will be also at liberty to apply before the municipal authorities for obtaining separate water supply connection to his rented portion at his own cost and till such separate water connection is obtained from the municipal authorities by the tenant, the landlord will allow the tenant to carry water from the existing water tap." 5. Persuant to the aforementioned observations made by this Court, the petitioner had filed an application before the respondent Municipality for giving him a separate water connection. The said prayer has not been acceded to. 6. An affidavit in opposition has been filed on behalf of Bally Municipality wherein it has been, inter alia, stated that keeping in view the fact that a civil suit is pending between the landlord and the tenant, and other proceedings under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, having been initiated, this Court should not exercise its extraordinary Constitutional writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. It was further submitted as Bally Municipality was not a party in the aforementioned criminal revisional application therefore, the said order is not binding upon it. 7. Mr. Mukherjee appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, has rightly drawn my attention to the provisions of s. 289 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932, and submitted on the basis thereof that an application for grant of separate water connection is also maintainable at the instance of a tenant. 7. Mr. Mukherjee appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, has rightly drawn my attention to the provisions of s. 289 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932, and submitted on the basis thereof that an application for grant of separate water connection is also maintainable at the instance of a tenant. Learned counsel in support of his contention has also relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Manindra Nath Pal & Ors. Vs. Municipal Commissioners of Baranagore Municipality & Anr., reported in AIR 1956 Cal 291 . Section 289 of the Bengal Municipal, Act reads thus: "289. Power to permit connection to houses and lands. (1) Subject to the prescribed conditions and restrictions and to such terms as the commissioner may from time, to time determine, the Commissioners at a meeting may (a) on application of the owner or occupier of any house or land (in respect of which the consolidated rate is paid), make, or cause, or permit to be made communication or connection from any main, or distribution pipe, belonging to the. Commissioners for the purpose of leading water or gas to such house or land, or (b) on the application of the owner or occupier of any house or land make, or cause or permit to be made, any connection or communication to such house or land from any drain, sewer, or channel constructed or maintained by or vested in the Commissioners." 8. A bare perusal of the aforementioned provision clearly shows that an application for grant of water connection is also maintainable at the instance of a occupier other than the owner. 9. Mr. Roy appearing on behalf of the respondent Municipality, however, draw my attention to Rule 3 of the House Connection Rules of Bally Municipality, and submitted on the basis thereof that the same stands as a bar in the petitioner's application for grant of water connection being entertained by the Municipality. The said Rule reads as follows: "3. (a) Each holding shall have its own service pipe from the main. A service pipe shall not be allowed to supply water to more than one holding unless the Commissioners at a meeting permit the same. All service pipes should be laid in a street or any common passage and a stop-cock shall be fixed on the connection of each holding." 10. A service pipe shall not be allowed to supply water to more than one holding unless the Commissioners at a meeting permit the same. All service pipes should be laid in a street or any common passage and a stop-cock shall be fixed on the connection of each holding." 10. A bare perusal of the said Rule leaves no manner of doubt that there is absolutely no bar in grant of water connection at the instance of a tenant. In fact, neither the said Rule can prevail over the provision of s. 289 of the Act, nor the said Rule purports to lay down an absolute embargo as is sought to be argued by Mr. Roy. In fact, the Commissioners, at a meeting, may permit more than one water connection in any holding. This Court upon taking into consideration the dispute between the petitioner and his landlord had made certain observations, Although the respondent Municipality was not a party in the aforementioned criminal revisional application, in my opinion, there is absolutely no bar on the part of the Municipality to entertain the petitioner's application for grant of a separate water connection, pursuant to the observations made by this Court, in as much as, there does not exist any statutory bar. Had the order of this Court been against the mandatory provision of the statute, it would have been open to the respondent Municipality to contend that the application for separate water connection filed by the petitioner was not maintainable. It is also true as was submitted by Mr. Roy, that a civil suit is pending between the landlord and the tenant, but in such a civil suit the petitioner will be entitled to obtain an order of injunction as against the Municipal Commissioners, in as much as, in that suit, the Municipal Commissioners are not parties. In this situation, in my opinion, this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable. 11. For the reasons aforementioned, this application is allowed, and the respondent Municipality is hereby directed to consider the petitioner's application for grant of water connection, on merits in terms of the observations made by this Court, and pass an order at an early date, and preferably within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 12. This application is disposed of, on the aforementioned terms. 13. 12. This application is disposed of, on the aforementioned terms. 13. Let xerox copy of this order be supplied to the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, on usual undertaking. Application disposed of.