TIRATH S. THAKUR, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition seeks a mandamus directing the respondents to grant a domestic electric connection for the petitioner's residential premises No. 1725/a-16, V Ward, 8th division, K. T. J. Nagar, Davanagere. The facts in brief are as follows: ( 2 ) THE petitioner claims to have purchased a house building site measuring 30' x 40' in Sy. No. 64/2 within the Davanagere town Municipal limits from one Radha K. Masoor, in terms of a sale deed dated 19th February, 1987. After securing the requisite licence from the City Municipality, Davanagere, the petitioner has constructed a residential building over the said site. According to the petitioner the building so constructed is assessed to payment of property tax by the Municipal Council. Copies of the katha extract in respect of the property and the endorsement issued to the petitioner by the Municipal Council, davangere as also receipts evidencing the payment of property tax have been produced by the petitioner as Annexures-A to D to the writ petition. ( 3 ) THE petitioner's grievance is that an application seeking electric connection for the aforesaid building was filed by him before the respondent-Board together with a deposit of Rs. 605/- as far back as 23rd July, 1990. The Board has however despite reminders issued by the petitioner refused to sanction the electric connection for the premises without any lawful justification thereby causing serious hardship to the petitioner and his family who is residing in the building. A mandamus is therefore sought directing the respondents to grant an electric connection to the petitioner with such other reliefs as this Court may deem fit in the circumstances. ( 4 ) IN the statement of objections filed on behalf ofrespondent-Board apart from stating that the prospective consumer of electricity is supposed to fulfil the requirements prescribed by the Regulations framed by the Board including deposit of security and execution of an agreement in the prescribed form, the Board has set up the plea that the petitioner is not the owner of the premises in question for which the electricity connection has been demanded and is not therefore entitled to seek any such connection. It is asserted that the land underlying the building constructed by the petitioner is owned by the respondent-Board having been acquired by it from one Basavarajappa the original owner thereof. It is asserted that the land underlying the building constructed by the petitioner is owned by the respondent-Board having been acquired by it from one Basavarajappa the original owner thereof. It is urged that basavarajappa had without any title transferred a portion of the said land to one Radha K. Masoor from whom the petitioner has purchased the site in question and raised a construction thereon. Since, neither Basavarajappa nor his alienee Radha K. Masoor had any title to the land, which according to the Board vested in it, the petitioner could not have acquired any title and therefore could not have legally constructed any building over the same. A reference is made to Original Suit No. 82 of 1983 filed in the court of the Civil Judge, Davanagere for a declaration that the board is the owner of the property in question which suit it is stated has been decreed in its favour by judgment of the said court dated 1-3-1986. It is asserted that since the Civil Court has also found that the land underlying the structure belongs to the Board the question of the petitioner seeking any connection and the Board granting the same does not arise. ( 5 ) IN the rejoinder filed by the petitioner, it is asserted that the petitioner is not a party to O. S. No. 82 of 1983, decreed by the Civil Judge, Davanagere. It is further stated that the property owned by the petitioner classified as CTS bearing No. 1725/a-16 and City Sy. No. 161 PTS No. 72 was at no stage the subject-matter of the said suit. It is urged that the property involved in the suit is situate in Sy. No. 64/2, the total extent whereof was 4 acres, out of which only 2 acres is said to have been acquired by the Board. The house constructed by the petitioner, it is urged is not situate on the property acquired by the Board so as to justify the refusal of an electric connection on that ground. ( 6 ) COUNSEL appearing for the petitioner argued that there fusal on the part of the Board to grant an electric connection on the ground that there was a dispute pending between basavarajappa on the one hand and the Board on the other was wholly unjustified and unsupported by any provisions of the electricity Supply Act or the Regulations framed thereunder. He submitted that the refusal on the part of the Board to grant an electric connection was causing serious hardship to the petitioner and his family, who were being denied one of the basic and essential amenities like a power connection for no good reason than the pendency of some litigation in respect of some property in a Court to which the petitioner was not a party. ( 7 ) MR. Gupta on the other hand argued that Basavaraj appawas the predecessor in title of the petitioner and that since basavarajappa himself had no title to the land over which the petitioner has constructed the house, the petitioner could not also acquire any title. He submitted that Basavarajappa had also applied for an electric connection, which was refused, against which he had preferred W. P. No. 11987 of 1989 disposed of by a Single Judge of this Court on 28th of February, 1990 (Basavarajappa v K. E. B.) reserving liberty for him to approach the Civil Court for appropriate orders. Another W. P. No. 3285 of 1994, filed by one Smt. Vrunda Bai claiming to be a tenant in a certain premises under Sri Basavarajappa was also dismissed by another Bench of this Court by an order dated 19th of December, 1994 (Smt. Vrunda Bai v K. E. B.) holding that the refusal of the board to grant an electric connection in respect of the premises, which was constructed on the Board's land was justified. Mr. Gupta contended that grant of an electric connection of a premises, which is illegally constructed by a tresspasser over the board's property would amount to placing premium upon his illegal act. ( 8 ) THE respondent-Board is a Statutory Authority, whose functions and duties are governed and regulated by the provisions of the statute under which it is created and the regulations framed thereunder. The Board discharges an important public function of supplying electric power to the consumer public, which, it cannot be disputed, is an essential service for a civilised and comfortable living in the modern times. Nothing however has been pointed out by Mr. The Board discharges an important public function of supplying electric power to the consumer public, which, it cannot be disputed, is an essential service for a civilised and comfortable living in the modern times. Nothing however has been pointed out by Mr. Gupta from the provisions of the Act or the Regulations to show that the board could refuse to grant an electric connection to a prospective consumer on the ground that the property in respect of which the same was being demanded was claimed by the board of that any litigation in respect of any such property was pending in any Court between the person making the application or his predecessor in title on the one hand and the Board on the other. Stated differently there is no legal sanction behind the respondent-Board's refusal to grant a connection simply because the property in respect of which the same is demanded is in dispute either between two parties, who are strangers to the board or between the Board on the one hand and the person claiming any such connection on the other. That being so, the refusal of the connection cannot be justified or sustained on any recognised juristic principle or any other reasonably acceptable hypothesis. ( 9 ) THE argument advanced by Mr. Gupta that the Board cannot be asked to place a premium upon an illegal act of trespass commited by the petitioner by granting to him an electric connection does not commend itself to me. The Board has in the situation in which it is placed a dual capacity. It is a statutory body created under the statute discharging a public duty on the one hand and a litigant claiming a right over the property in dispute in the Court on the other. Unless there is any provision under the Act or the Regulations permitting the board to blend the two capacities for the purposes of discharging its public functions it is not entitled to do so, so as to refuse a connection only on the ground that the person applying for the same is in litigation with the Board qua the property for which the connection is demanded. It is in fact doubtful whether any provision permitting any such blending of the capacities could at all be enacted considering the fact that any such liberty granted to a statutory body would make its obligation to provide the service controlled by it, subservient to its own interest in the pending litigation. A conflict may in any such case arise between its duty on the one hand and its interest on the other. It would also offend the principles of natural justice, fairness and reasonableness if it could refuse to provide what it is otherwise bound to do, only by reason of a self serving unilateral decision taken by it. The dominant position in which any such public body may be placed cannot be used by it to coerce the opposite party into submission for the dominance is by reason of the all pervading public nature of its duty which in turn is in the nature of trust held for the benefit of even those who may be in litigation with it. It is open to the Board to contest the appeal preferred by Basavarajappa and establish its title to the land and should it succeed, it is open to it to take such further action for redemption of the property from the alleged illegal occupation of Basavarajappa or any person claiming through him. But the right to do so cannot be made the basis for refusal of a connection, till such time the claim made by the Board is finally determined and upheld by the Courts. As at present, all that has been pointed out is that there is a dispute as to the title of the property in question even though according to the petitioner, he is neither a party to the said dispute nor is the" property in question the subject-matter of the suit or the appeal presently pending. Assuming however that the property in question is also the subject-matter of the decree presently in appeal before the District Court and assuming further that the petitioner who claims through Basavarajappa is also a party to the said proceedings, yet the very pendency of a dispute in respect of the property for which the connection is sought between the petitioner on the one hand and the Board on the other can hardly justify the Board's refusal to grant a connection. ( 10 ) THERE is yet another aspect that cannot be over looked. The grant of an electric connection is subject to the person applying for the same fulfilling all other conditions and formalities prescribed under the relevant regulations. This may include the execution of an agreement, making of deposits and payment of other dues and charges. So long as the petitioner is prepared to fulfill all such conditions required for the grant of connection the board is in no way prejudiced. Supply of electric power to the petitioner would be subject to all such conditions as are otherwise prescribed including payment of charges for the energy consumed, in which event the Board does not stand to lose or suffer any loss to justify a refusal. No such prejudice is caused to the Board even qua the civil proceedings that are pending before the District Court, nor is it the case of the Board that the grant of a connection to the petitioner would in any manner weaken its case in the appeal pending before the appellate Court. In any event, grant of a connection for the enjoyment of the property by the petitioner till such time the civil Court decides the matter is bound to remain subject to the ultimate decision that the Civil Court may take, thereby causing absolutely no prejudice to it. ( 11 ) RELIANCE upon the two judgments of this Court in the earlier writ petitions filed by Basavarajappa and Smt. Vrunda bai does not advance the case of the Board. In the writ petition filed by Basavarajappa, this Court had declined to express any opinion on the merits of the contentions urged therein and left it open to the petitioner to seek appropriate directions from the civil Court. The said judgment does not therefore lend any assistance to Mr. Gupta. Insofar as W. P. No. 3285 of 1994 filed by Smt. Vrunda Bai is concerned, the question as to whether the board can at all be justified in refusing the grant of a connection in the absence of any statutory provision to support such a refusal does not appear to have been examined. All that the judgment states is that in the light of the order passed in W. P. No. 11987 of 1989, the Board was justified in refusing to grant the power connection. All that the judgment states is that in the light of the order passed in W. P. No. 11987 of 1989, the Board was justified in refusing to grant the power connection. There is no principle or proposition of law stated in the said judgement, which can possibly be construed as a precedent for this Court to follow. ( 12 ) IN the circumstances, therefore, this writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed and by a mandamus the respondents are directed to grant an electric connection to the petitioner subject to the petitioner satisfying all other conditions and requirements prescribed for the purpose by the relevant regulations. The grant of the connection shall, however, be without prejudice to the rights of the Board in the civil appeal pending before the District court at Chitradurga and shall also be subject to the condition that the petitioner remits the electric charges for the energy consumed regularly in accordance with the relevant rules. The respondents shall do the needful within 3 months from the date a copy of this order is produced before them together with an application for the grant of a connection as according to Mr. Gupta, the earlier application filed by him has since been returned to him. In the circumstances, however, the parties are left to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .