JUDGMENT : Aggrieved by the common judgment and order dated 22-4-2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 5166 of 2014, the appellant-association is preferring this writ appeal. While moving the writ appeal, the appellant had sought for an interim order to stay the impugned common judgment and order. After hearing both the learned counsel appearing for both the parties at length, this Court by the order dated 20-6-2015 rejected the prayer for the interim order: no appeal was preferred thereagainst by the appellant-association. As virtually similar arguments were advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the rival parties, it will be apposite to reproduce hereunder the said order: “As for the prayer for interim order, the learned counsel appearing for the rival parties present today were heard at some length. Before proceeding further, the facts giving rise to this appeal may be briefly noticed. The respondent No. 1 [the petitioner in WP(C) No. 5166/2014] sought for revalidation of the sanctioned load from the Transformer installed in the building in question, which is opposed by the appellant, who claims to be maintaining and managing the said Transformer. Having rejected the objection by the Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. (APDCL), the appellant instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction along with an application for temporary injunction. The injunction application was, however, rejected, against which the appellant preferred an appeal before this Court, which by the order dated 5-3-2013 rejected the appeal. Review Petition No. 78 of 2013 was thereafter filed before this Court. In the meantime, the respondent No. 1 and 2 entered into a tenancy agreement with the respondent No 3 for a period of years with effect from 1-5-2013.” 2. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent No. 1 and 2 therafter moved a writ petition being WP(C) No. 4279/13 before this Court requesting for security which was allowed on 16-8-2013 without giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant though the appellant was a party to that writ petition. Review Petition No. 111/2013 was thereafter filed against the order dated 16-8-2013, which was rejected by the order dated 27-8-2013. This writ appeal is directed against the said order rejecting the Review Petition No. 111/2013, and the same is still pending. Review Petition No. 111/2013 was thereafter filed against the order dated 16-8-2013, which was rejected by the order dated 27-8-2013. This writ appeal is directed against the said order rejecting the Review Petition No. 111/2013, and the same is still pending. In the meantime, Review Petition No. 78/2013 was disposed of vide the order dated 7-3-2014 holding, inter alia, that the respondent No. 1 and 2 had no authority to distribute and/or release power from the Transformer without the NOC from the appellant. The appellant preferred SLP(C) 12601/2014 before the Apex Court, which by the order dated 7-3-2014 dismissed with an observation that the observations contained in the order dated 7-3-2014 should not prejudice the parties at the trial before the Court below. The APDCL thereafter asked the respondent No. 1 and 2 to produce the NOC from the appellant and when they failed to do so, the electricity connection was disconnected on 29-8-2014. This prompted the respondent No. 1 and 2 to file before this Court WP(C) No. 5166/2014 on 25-9-2014 while the respondent No. 3 separately filed WP(C) No. 5245/2014. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both the rival parties, thereafter allowed both the writ petitions in a common order, which is under challenge in this writ appeal. 3. The question to be decided in this appeal is whether the learned Single Judge is correct in directing the APDCL authorities to restore electricity connection to the respondent No. 3 or not. It may be noted that the question as to whether the respondent No. 1 and 2 have any right to distribute and/or release load from the said Transformer which is alleged to be maintained and managed by the appellant-association is a matter pending before a civil court and is yet to be decided one way or the other. It may be noted that the question as to whether the respondent No. 1 and 2 have any right to distribute and/or release load from the said Transformer which is alleged to be maintained and managed by the appellant-association is a matter pending before a civil court and is yet to be decided one way or the other. The principal contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellant is that the learned Single Judge has completely overlooked the glaring facts that the Apex Court had dismissed the SLP preferred by the respondent No. 1 and 2 against the interim observations made by the learned Single Judge that after the sale of flats, the promoter/builder did not remain the absolute owner of the transformer and that he was only entitled to draw electricity at par with other flat owners and such builder has no vested right to distribute or release power from the transformer to any party other than the flat owners and that too without the consent of the appellant-association. The SLP(C) No. 12601/14 was, therefore, dismissed by the Apex Court. He, therefore, submits that the learned Single Judge has acted illegally in allowing the writ petitions notwithstanding the fact that his earlier interim observations were not interfered with by the Apex Court while dismissing the SLP(C). To appreciate the contention of the learned senior counsel, we reproduce below the findings of the learned Single Judge: “The whole controversy has arisen because of the above quoted clarification vide order dated 7th March, 2014 passed in Review Petition No. 78/2013. The fact of the matter is that the injunction prayed for by the Space Owners Association was rejected and thereafter, the appeal was also rejected. It was only because of the said clarification, there has been electricity disconnection in the tenanted premises of the petitioner in WP(C) No. 5245/2014. While according to the respondent No. 11, it being an association of the purchasers of the flat/building built by the petitioner in WP(C) No. 5166/2014, NOC is required to be obtained towards keeping electricity connection, but on the other hand, it is the stand of the petitioners in both the writ petitions that since the particular tenanted premises belong to the builder/vendor/petitioner in WP(C) No. 5166/2014, no NOC is required to be obtained from the Association. Amidst the aforesaid tussle, it is the petitioner in WP(C) No. 5254/14, who has been made the victim by disconnecting the electricity that was earlier provided to it. The Apex Court in its order has observed that any of the observations made in the review order shall not prejudice the parties at the trial before the Court below. In that view of the matter and without prejudice to the rights and contentions raised by the parties, it is hereby provided that the APDCL shall restore the electricity connection to the premises of the petitioner in WP(C) No. 5245/2014 forthwith without insisting for NOC from the respondent No. 11, i.e. Space Owners’ Association. Needless to say that the rights and contentions of the parties shall be decided in the title suit pending in the court below. With the aforesaid directions and observations, the writ petitions are allowed without, however, any order as to costs. To quell any doubt, it is hereby provided any of the observations made in this proceeding/order shall in no way prejudice the rights and contentions of the parties in the Title Suit.” 4. It may be noted that the application for temporary injunction being Misc. (J) Case No. 63/2011 filed by the appellant in connection with Title Suit No. 105/2011 for restraining the respondent No. 1 and 2 from providing any load to the tenants of the respondent No. 12 in WP(C) No. 5245/2014, who is the petitioner in WP(C) No. 5166/2014, was rejected. The appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed whereafter the review petition was filed upon which the observations in question were made. 5. In our view, the impugned judgment was passed for restoration of electricity connection to the respondent No. 3 [the petitioner in WP(C) No. 5245/2014] without demanding NOC from the Space Owners’ Association, as he had been denied of electricity supply due to the ongoing litigation between the appellant and the respondent No. 1 and 2. Prima facie, the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment, therefore, does not suffer from any infirmity calling for the interference of this Court. Consequently, prayer for interim order is rejected. 6. As already observed by us, the appellant did not prefer an appeal against our order dated 20-6-2015 rejecting their prayer for staying the operation of the impugned judgment on the grounds mentioned therein. Consequently, prayer for interim order is rejected. 6. As already observed by us, the appellant did not prefer an appeal against our order dated 20-6-2015 rejecting their prayer for staying the operation of the impugned judgment on the grounds mentioned therein. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the rival parties, we are of the view that no new materials or submissions have been brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the appellant to change the prima facie view taken by us in the order dated 20-6-2015. The impugned judgment in the writ petition was passed for restoring electricity connection to the respondent No. 3 [the petitioner in WP(C) No. 5245/2014] without demanding NOC from the appellant-association as he was denied of electricity supply due to the ongoing litigation between the appellant and the respondent No. 1 and 2. Consequently, the impugned judgment does not call for our interference. For what has been stated in the foregoing, there is no merit in this writ appeal, which is hereby dismissed. The parties are, however, directed to bear their respective costs.