Judgment Prakash Tatia, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner’s grievance is against the respondents Electricity Supply Company as the respondents are not issuing electric connection for the industrial unit of the petitioner. The petitione filed one suit for ion seeking direction against the respondents to provide electric connection to injunction application of ion application of the petitioner was allowed by the trial Court vide ed 7th May, 2004 (Annex. 1) and the trial Court directed the respondents to provide electric connection to the petitioner, howev r, on petitioner’s furnishing bank guarantee for Rs. 20,000/-. The above order of the trial Court dat d 7th May, 2004 was challenged by the respondents Electricityr Supply Company before Court of District Judge, Pali. The learned District Judge, Pali vide ed 5th June, 2004 allowed the appeal of the respondent Electricity Company and dismissed thethe petitioner. The petiti ner. It will be relevant to mention here that petitioner is claiming himself to be the licensee of the pl t in dispute. The petitioner’s lease of the plot was cancelled by the RICCO and the proceedings were initiated against the oner for taking possession by provisions of Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupation) Act, 1964. In that proceeding, eviction order was passed by the Estate Officer against the petitioner, but that r was set aside in appeal on 210.2004, which was preferred by the oner to challenge the r of the EstateOfficer. 3. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner though the petitioner’s firm’s name is Vivek Textile, but the oner got the registration of unit by disclosing that petitioner will do the business of not only textile alone, but may do the business of very many other things including the food products. The petitioner further submits that petitioner undertakes not to do the textile business till it is permitted by the competent authorities and the necessary permissions are issued to the petitioner for running the textile unit. The oner further says that since the petiti er will not be using electric connection for any textile purpose, therefore, there arises no questi of creating any pollution in the factory premises, which may come because of the textile productions. The oner further says that since the petiti er will not be using electric connection for any textile purpose, therefore, there arises no questi of creating any pollution in the factory premises, which may come because of the textile productions. It is also submitted that the petitioner has already deposited the amount of demand notice, which has been issued by Electricity Supply Company and further submitted bank guarantee in pursuance of the trial Court’s order. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the appellate Court went absolutely astray and under impression that petitioner may use the electric connection for running the textile industry, set aside the injunction order. It is also submitted that in case electric connection is granted to the petitioner, it will be in advantage to both the parties as petitioner will run his business and the respondents will earn from supply of the electricity. So far as apprehension that oner may flout the undertaking of not doing the business of textile industry without obtaining permission from all the departments from which permission is necessary, is having no basis, but the oner is ready to furnish an undertaking beforethe trial Court. 4. Learned Counsel for respondent vehemently submitted that in view of the fact that petitioner’s industrial unit has name of Vivek Textile, the respondents have reasonable apprehension that the petitioner may misuse connection. It is also submitted that when there is a serious dispute between the petitioner and the RICCO, it will be not in the interest of the respondents to grant electric case.5. I considered the submissions of learn d Counsel for the parties and perused the facts of whicT e petitioner obtained the lease for e tablishing unit. He is seeking electr c to run his industrial unit. The respondents may be c ncerned with the fac hat electric co nection permitted by the respond nt may not be used f r creating pollution, bu in th sthe connection to the petitioner. is ready to submi the written undertaking tha he will no use thefor textile industry, therefore, there remainindustrial ase, w ee petitioner h s already furnished no reason fo i refusing the electriconn c ion to th r r. The respondents may be conce ned with secu y of heir amount fo the money of the respondents shall be secured. he bank gua antee of Rs. 20,000/-. he bank gua antee of Rs. 20,000/-. The petitionefurth r undertakes to p y the electricity charges as per the bills within the s ipula ed time, thereby 6. In view o the above reasons, the present wri petition de ves to be allowed, hence allowed and the order o the appellate Court dated 5th June, 2004 is Court is restored. However, it is further ordered tha the petition t aside and the order of the trial before the trial Court that he will not use premises for running his any textile industry in premises in dispute without obtaining prior permission from all the competent authorities including Pollution Board, if necessary and shall not use the unit for textile purpose without informing the Court in advance. The petitioner shall also furnish undertaking that he shall pay the entire electricity dues in time as per bills, which may be issued by the respondents. The petitioner shall submit undertaking within a period of one week from today and the respondents shall give the electric connection to the petitioner’s unit within a period of 7 days thereafter. shall submit written undertaking