ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. This letters patent appeal filed by the appellant Ajay Kumar is directed against the judgment dated 10.7.2007 passed in W.P.C. No. 1554 of 2007 by which learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent Jharkhand State Electricity Board to provide electric connection in the premises of the writ petitioner. It is worth to mention here that appellant Ajay Kumar was not a party to the writ petition and has filed this appeal on the ground that he is aggrieved by that order. 2. The case of the writ petitioner was that without informing him and without assigning any reasons and without giving notice or opportunity of hearing, the electric connection in the premises occupied by him has been disconnected by the respondent-Electricity Board, although there were no arrears of bill. Respondent-Board in the counter affidavit took the stand that the electric connection in the premises of the writ petitioner was not disconnected; rather the said connection has been changed in the name of one Ajay Kumar. It was stated that Ajay Kumar filed application for change of name in respect of the said connection and on his application name was changed. Learned single Judge found that before changing the name and before disconnecting the electric connection, writ petitioner was neither noticed nor he was heard. On that ground action of the Board was held arbitrary and mala fide. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed and the respondent-Board was directed to provide electric-connection to the writ petitioner. 3. Mrs. Ritu Kumar learned Counsel for the appellant-Ajay Kumar, contended that the premises situates within Harmu Housing Colony of which Smt. Sabita Sen was the original allottee. The appellant said to have purchased the said premises along with other premises from Smt. Sabita Sen by virtue of registered sale deed dated 20.7.2005. After the said purchase, the appellant being an absolute owner moved an application before the Board for change of name in respect of electric connection. Learned Counsel further submitted that appellant has already filed suit for eviction against the writ petitioner for evicting him from the premises in question. 4. Admittedly, electric connection was in the name of the writ petitioner, which was changed at the instance of the appellant without giving notice or opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner. Learned Counsel further submitted that appellant has already filed suit for eviction against the writ petitioner for evicting him from the premises in question. 4. Admittedly, electric connection was in the name of the writ petitioner, which was changed at the instance of the appellant without giving notice or opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner. In our view, therefore, learned single Judge has rightly held that action of the Electricity Board is illegal and arbitrary. 5. In the counter affidavit, the respondents has stated in paragraph 11 that appellant Ajay Kumar has already filed Title Suit No. 20 of 2006 in the Court of Munsif, Ranchi and the same is pending but at the same time electric connection has been disconnected and the respondents who is residing with his family members are facing difficulties. Filing of eviction suit by the appellant supposes that writ cautioner has been occupying the premises. 6. In that view of the matter, any action by which amenities available in the premises is withdrawn without due process of law shall be illegal and unjustified. I, therefore, fully agree with the view taken by the learned single Judge in allowing the writ petition. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in this appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. However, it is made clear that any observation made by learned single Judge or by this Court will not in any way prejudice the case of the appellant in any suit or proceeding and that shall be decided on its own merit. D.G.R. Patnaik, J. 8. I agree. Appeal dismissed.