Judgment :- (1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of station manager of W.B.S.E.B. dated September 16, 2005 declining to give him supply of electricity unless he produced no objection and way leave from one Sukesh Chandra Jana. (2.) Said Sukesh Chandra Jana is the fourth respondent in this writ petition. It has been stated in the writ petition that he is the landlord of the petitioner who is running a shop from the premises concerned. (3.) It has been stated in the petition that in the capacity of tenant the petitioner had been enjoying electricity through the meter standing in the name of his landlord, but in August 2005 supply was disconnected illegally. There is no dispute that the petitioner submitted his application for supply of electricity through a separate meter. Said Sri Jana submitted an objection to such application. He stated that since the land and property belonged to him, no meter should be given to the petitioner for supply of electricity. These are the reasons why the station manager declined to give supply. (4.) Advocate submits that notice of the proceedings was duly received by the fourth respondent. However, he has chosen not to enter appearance and contest. Advocate for W.B.S.E.B. submits that because of the objection of the fourth respondent supply could not be given. (5.) I agree with Advocate for the petitioner that in the capacity of tenant of the premises the petitioner would be entitled to get supply of electricity through a separate meter. Supply of electricity to him would not cause any prejudice to the rights and contentions of the fourth respondent. Such supply also would not create any right in favour of the petitioner in so far as the tenancy is concerned. (6.) The ground on which supply was not given, being the one noted before, I think no useful purpose would be served by keeping the writ petition pending. I propose to dispose of the writ petition, since the fourth respondent has chosen to stay away, even after receipt of notice of the proceedings. In my view, the petitioner should be supplied electricity by respondent board through a separate meter. This is exactly the obligation cast on the board by Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003. I propose to dispose of the writ petition, since the fourth respondent has chosen to stay away, even after receipt of notice of the proceedings. In my view, the petitioner should be supplied electricity by respondent board through a separate meter. This is exactly the obligation cast on the board by Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003. (7.) For these reasons I dispose of the writ petition directing the board authorities to supply electricity to the petitioner through a separate meter, provided the petitioner complies with all the necessary formalities and pays the requisite charges. If necessary, the board authorities would be at liberty to obtain police help for executing the works and expenses, if any, shall be borne by the petitioner. The process shall be completed within a fortnight from the date of complying with the formalities and paying the charges by the petitioner. Within a week from date board authorities shall indicate what formalities are to be complied with and what payment is to be made by the petitioner. (8.) There shall be no order for costs in the writ petition. Copy of this order duly authenticated by A.R. (C) or A.C.O. shall be given to Advocates for the parties, on usual undertakings. Urgent certified xerox copy of this order shall be supplied to the parties, if applied for.