Ajit Singh; CJ.:-- Mr.AK Bora, learned counsel for the appellant. Heard on admission. This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.6.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court, whereby he has finally disposed of WP(C) No. 3481/2016 of Respondent No. 1 with a direction regarding electricity connection. Respondent No. 1 is in occupation of a house. The house is constructed on a land of which title is claimed by the appellant’s father, namely, Azizur Rahman. He had even taken the possession of the land. Respondent No. 1, therefore, filed Title Suit No. 29/2004 for restoration of possession of the land under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. But the suit has been dismissed vide judgment dated 15.10.2012 (Annexure-B) on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The house constructed on the land is however in possession of Respondent No. 1. On a complaint made by Azizur Rahman (father of appellant), Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 disconnected the electricity connection of the house in occupation of Respondent No. 1. Aggrieved, Respondent No. 1 filed WP(C) No. 3481/2016 for a direction to restore the electricity connection. During the course of hearing a suggestion was made by Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 that in the event of submission of formal application by Respondent No. 1 for separate power connection and payment of additional load security, the electricity connection can be restored. The learned Single Judge having regard to the suggestion, finally disposed of the writ petition with an observation that if such an application is made by Respondent No. 1, the same be processed and considered as per norms preferably within a week by Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. It is in this background, the appellant has filed the present appeal. It is submitted that the father of appellant had died before filing of the writ petition and Respondent No. 1 deliberately did not implead his legal representatives to obtain a favourable order. It is to be noted that no adverse order has been passed against the appellant. Respondent No. 1 is apparently residing in a house which is constructed on a disputed land. According to Respondent No. 1 the house has been constructed by him from his own earnings. The occupation of the house by Respondent No. 1 has not been declared to be illegal by any court. Respondent No. 1 is apparently residing in a house which is constructed on a disputed land. According to Respondent No. 1 the house has been constructed by him from his own earnings. The occupation of the house by Respondent No. 1 has not been declared to be illegal by any court. Whatever it may be, every person is entitled for electricity connection for his residential house subject to rules/regulations. In the fact situation of the case, no rule has been pointed out by the appellant which prohibits Respondent No. 1 from obtaining electricity connection. This being the situation, we find no good ground to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed summarily.