JUDGMENT : Soumen Sen, J. An affidavit of service is filed, let the same be kept on record. 2. The subject matter of challenge in this writ petition is an order passed by the District Engineer, C.E.S.C. Limited, West Subarban District on October 10, 2012 pursuant to the order passed by another learned Single Judge of this court in W.P. 16095 (W) of 2012. 3. The District Engineer, in his order, records that during hearing the learned advocate for the petitioner candidly submitted that actually there was no alternative route before the licensee company to reach the destination for installation of new supply by laying out cables other than the land involved in Title Suit No. 2116 of 2012. The District Engineer has referred to the order passed in Title Suit No. 2116 of 2012 in which the private respondents have prayed for a declaration that they being the plaintiffs are sole absolute and sixteen (16) annas owner of the suit property and the defendants have no manner of right, title, interest and possession over any part of the suit property and the defendants no. 1 and 2 have no right to get electric connection from the C.E.S.C. Limited/defendant no. 3 through the suit property. A further prayer was made in the said suit for restraining the defendants no. 1 and 2 from taking electric connection through the suit property. 4. It appears that in the said suit the plaintiffs/private respondents have obtained an ad interim order of injunction restraining the defendants no. 1 and 2 meaning thereby the petitioner and another person from taping electric connection through the suit property. The said ad interim order of injunction is still continuing. 5. The C.E.S.C. authorities on inspection of the property explored the possibility of drawing electric line to the petitioner's premises without disturbing the property in suit, but after inspection it was found that the licensee company could not draw electric line or cable for giving new electric connection to the writ petitioner's premises without disturbing the property involved in the suit. 6. Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharya, learned advocate, appears on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the C.E.S.C. authorities have ignored that there is a passage, which is common to all and the plaintiffs/private respondents have not led any claim to such passage. Mr. 6. Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharya, learned advocate, appears on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the C.E.S.C. authorities have ignored that there is a passage, which is common to all and the plaintiffs/private respondents have not led any claim to such passage. Mr. Bhattacharya has referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Chandu Khamaru v. Nayan Malik & ors., reported in (2011) 12 SCC 314 . He relies on paragraphs 11 and 12 of the said decision and submits that the statutory right of the petitioner to apply for and obtain supply of electricity from the distribution licensee cannot be denied. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while disposing of the aforesaid civil appeal, in paragraphs 12 and 13 observed that whether the passage through which electric line could be drawn is a private passage or common passage would have to be decided in the pending civil suit, but pending resolution of the dispute between the parties, the appellant could not be denied the supply of electricity in his house. A direction was given to the distribution licensee to find out whether there was any other way, other than the disputed passage, through which an electric line could be drawn for supply of electricity in the house of the appellant. If there was no other way to supply electricity in the house of the appellant, the distribution licensee would follow the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 67 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for carrying out the work for supply of electricity in the house of the appellant. 8. Since the matter relates to supply of electricity, it would be open to the petitioner to renew the said prayer before the learned civil judge in the pending suit. Whether the land though which electric line could be drawn really falls within the suit property or common passage is a matter to be decided by the civil court in view of the fact that the learned civil judge is hearing the main suit in which a declaration of title is involved. 9. It is needless to mention that the learned civil judge would be guided by the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dns in the case of Chandu Khamaru (supra). 10. 9. It is needless to mention that the learned civil judge would be guided by the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dns in the case of Chandu Khamaru (supra). 10. It is neither possible nor desirable for this court to go into the question as to whether in laying down the cables the suit property would be touched or the same is possible through the common passage. Whether the passage claimed to be a common passage by the petitioner is really a common passage or private passage is a matter to be decided by the learned civil judge. 11. In view of the aforesaid, I dispose of this writ application by directing the petitioner to approach the civil court for appropriate reliefs. 12. Since no affidavit in opposition has been called for, the allegations made in the writ application are deemed to have been not admitted by the respondents. 13. There will be no order as to costs. 14. Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, will be made available to the applicant within a week from the date of putting in the requisites.