Judgment :- 1. On consent, this writ petition is taken up for final hearing, at the admission stage. 2. The writ petition is filed against the proceedings of the second respondent in letter No.Voo.Po./E & Pa/Kho.Ma./Kho.5/No.48/2010, dated 26.06.2010 to quash the same and to direct the second respondent to provide electricity connection to the petitioners premises in question without insisting for the registered sale deed or tax receipt in favour of the petitioners. 3. The brief facts which are relevant for consideration are that the petitioners herein were originally tenants in respect of the premises under the 4th respondent. While the tenancy is in force, the petitioners and the 4th respondent entered into an agreement for sale in respect of the property. According to the petitioners they have already paid a sum of Rs.8,50,000/- towards part payment of the sale consideration and they continue to be in possession of the property in their capacity as the agreement holders and the landlord is evading to execute the sale deed resulting in Civil Suit filed by both the petitioners against the landlord. Further, case of the petitioners is that pending civil suit the petitioners applied for electricity service connection in their capacity as the occupiers of the property along with relevant documents such as rental agreement, Indemnity bond, copy of the plaint etc., in support of their contention that the owner who is in loggerheads with the petitioners is not willing to give his consent for the tenants getting electricity connection in their name. But, the petitioners application is not considered by the second respondent and the second respondent is insisting for the production of additional documents such as tax receipts and copy of the sale deed in the name of the petitioners. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners applications for electricity connection is in order and the petitioners have also enclosed all the documents required to prove their occupation and the refusal on the part of the authority concerned in considering their application, for sanction of electricity connection to which they are otherwise entitled to, is unfair, arbitrary, improper and illegal. 5. 5. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 Electricity Board would attempt to justify the impugned notice calling upon the petitioners to produce two objectionable documents on the ground that as the petitioners have sought for electricity connection in their capacity as the owner of the property, the documents are sought to be produced to prove their ownership. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made on both sides and perused the material records available herein. 7. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners have sought for the electricity connection only in their capacity as the occupiers of the property. The application, which is enclosed at pages 18 to 21 of the typed set of papers, would disclose that the name of the petitioners are mentioned against the column-owner and the column-occupier is answered with dash mark i.e. "-". 8. On the basis of such particulars furnished in their application, the second respondent has rightly called upon the petitioners to produce the copy of the house tax receipts and the sale deed. Though the petitioners have in their communication sent through their lawyer dated 26.06.2010 sought to explain their stand, the same is also not helpful to the petitioners for want of specific averments regarding this aspect. Though the letter dated 26.06.2010 furnishes all the details about the agreement of sale, payment of the entire sale consideration and pendency of civil suit etc., it does nowhere mention that the relevant column in the application is wrongly answered. That being so the action of the second respondent in issuing the impugned memo on the basis of the available particulars cannot be said to be erroneous or illegal. 9. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners is now fervently representing that the particulars furnished in the application is only by mistake and the same can be corrected by permitting the petitioners to send a fresh application and the second respondent may be directed to consider the same in the light of the documents already submitted along with the original application and additional documents if any produced by the intending consumers to prove their occupation of the property. This Court finds such request made by the petitioners to be reasonable and bonafide. 10. This Court finds such request made by the petitioners to be reasonable and bonafide. 10. In the result, the petitioners are permitted to send a revised application within one week from the date of receipt of the copy of this order along with additional documents, if any, in the custody of the intending consumers to prove their occupation of the property and the second respondent is directed to consider their application in the light of the documents produced by the petitioners along with their original application bearing No.14957 and additional documents if any, on merits and in accordance with the procedure laid down under law, after giving them due notice and personal hearing if warranted and the whole exercise shall be completed within four weeks thereafter. With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.