JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed assailing the order passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act. 2. Short background involved in the case is that the opposite party No.2 being the owner of the site in question applied for electricity connection to the disputed site in the duly prescribed format. In furtherance of the submission of the application form, she has also made certain deposit facilitating the power supply to her residence. The power supply having not been extended to the opposite party No.2’s house, the opposite party No.2 initiated a proceeding under the Legal Services Authorities Act seeking a direction to the Electricity Department more particularly i.e. CESU for immediate supply of electricity connection to the opposite party No.2’s house. The proceeding was registered as PLA case No.1/2016 in the Office of the Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS), Cantonment Road, Cuttack. Finding a prima facie case in favour of the opposite party No.2, notice was issued to the contesting opposite parties i.e. the present petitioners. The opposite parties contested the matter objecting the claim of the petitioner therein stating that the power connection to the disputed site is not possible for the impossible grounds. Firstly, there is no passage at all to draw an electricity line upto to the opposite party No.2’s house and consequently, in the event any attempt is made to draw the electricity line as it overlaps other residences and the railway track, it is being intervened by a railway track. Further, it is also contended that their attempt for drawl of the electricity connection has also been frustrated for the intervention of the local people on the premises of getting their house affected for such connection on the ground of live wire threat to their premises. From the order sheet in the proceeding before the Permanent Lok Adalat, it appears, the Permanent Lok Adalat also called for reports from the contesting opposite parties and after recording several proceedings, the proceeding before the Permanent Lok Adalat was ultimately concluded on 23.4.2016 directing therein the contesting opposite parties i.e. the petitioners to give temporary electricity connection to the house of the opposite party No.2 herein within a period of seven days from the date of the order. While recording the opposite party No.2’s undertaking to bear the expenses for such connection, it is for the, order could not be implemented in due time, thus, the matter was taken up further by the Permanent Lok Adalat on 3.12.2016. On which date, the Permanent Lok Adalat again passed an order directing the present petitioners to comply the order dated 30.4.2016 by taking help of I.I.C., Jagatpur to avoid any hindrance being taken by the local people. The matter did not resolve there. As appears, the petitioners were not in a position to give the electricity connection, which resulted filing the present writ petition. 3. Challenging the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that for the observations in the report submitted by the competent persons pursuant to calling of the Permanent Lok Adalat and for the obstruction coming in the way of such connection, the direction dated 30.4.2016 could not be implemented and consequently, learned counsel for the petitioners claimed for setting aside the direction impugned herein. Referring to the provisions contained in the Regulation-8 of the OERC (distribution and condition of supply) Code, 2004, the petitioners expressed their inability to work-out the order of the Permanent Lok Adalat in order to facilitate the electricity connection to the opposite party No.2’s residence. 4. Pursuant to the notice in the writ petition, the opposite party No.2 apart from filing a counter affidavit contended that there is a clear passage to the site involved and there is deliberate action on the part of the Electricity Department in not facilitating the electricity connection to the opposite party No.2’s house, thereby making the life of the petitioner miserable. In the counter affidavit, the opposite party No.2 has also demonstrated some obstructions created by some local people and brought to the notice of the Court that some complaints in the said regard are also pending consideration before some other authorities. 5. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and finding that the issue involved herein is a soft one particularly relating to the electricity connection to the opposite party No.2’s residence, this Court by its order dated 7.4.2017 deputed a Law Officer of this Court to have a spot enquiry and give report in the matter of availability of any passage to draw the electricity connection to the opposite party No.2’s house. As a consequence of which, a report has been submitted by the learned Law Officer deputed by this Court. Disclosures made therein leaves no doubt that there have been hindrances obstructing the drawal of the electricity connection to the opposite party No.2’s residence. This Court from the proceeding of the authority below observes that an enquiry was conducted by the Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha and in their report dated 13.5.2016 in order to facilitate a temporary connection requested the petitioners the following : “For effecting temporary power supply to your premises: 1. You are advised to apply in temporarty connection from at Office of Junior Manager (Elect.), Section Jobra, At.-Jagatpur observing all the departmental formalities. 2. You are advised to purchase 150 mtr service connection wire for extension of temporary service connection, to your premises. 3. Necessary supports are required for extension of service connection wire under safety ground which have to arranged by you and errection of same are your responsibility. 4. The temporary service connection estimated amount should be deposited in the office of J.M. (Elect.) Section Jobra by your before giving temporary power supply to your premises. 5. The right of way problem arises if any, during extension of temporary service connection wire, it must be solved by you i.e. The Right of way problem is completely yours, as per OERC Code-2004 Section-8. 6. On 10.6.2016 a physical verification of study of feasibility for power supply to the opposite party No.2’s residence was also prepared with the following observation : “(a). The house constructed is close to the railway boundary. (b). There is no road to the house of Smt. Ganguly. We went to the house by climbing the boundary of other plots. The house was locked. (c). There are other plots near the house of Jharana Mandal. (d). Some houses have been constructed and some are under construction and some plots are lying blank. (e). There is no adjoining road between the plots and no road to the house of Jharana Ganguly. This may be confirmed from the point that, while, I called Sri Panda to come near to his house, and he came by climbing the railway boundary wall and walking on it. Sri panda confirmed that, the neighboring people are not allowing him to come to his house by climbing their plots. (f). This may be confirmed from the point that, while, I called Sri Panda to come near to his house, and he came by climbing the railway boundary wall and walking on it. Sri panda confirmed that, the neighboring people are not allowing him to come to his house by climbing their plots. (f). Three people has been provided with service connection by erecting wooden post, making L shape service connection from the existing 250KVA Nankar S/S. Other people are enjoying power supply by extension. (g). Service connection proposed to Smt. Jharana Rani Gangluly shall cross over others people buildings, if provided. Hence, ROW clearance is necessary. (h). There are two alternate way to provide power supply to the applicant 1) By constructing LT line form the newly installed SS for a distance of about 300 Meter and another is 2) By installing a 10KVA SP mounted SS, as because the 11 KV line is very near to the building of Smt. Ganguly. 7. In furtherance to the above, a communication is also made to the opposite party No.2 on 21.6.2016 by the CESU Authority further requesting her to either produce necessary way, leave, license, sanction or other right or interest from the adjoining plot owner or co-owner or agreeing with the alternative way for availing the power supply clearly indicating therein the observation and the Electricity Department in an enquiry in presence of her residence reflected as herein below: “(a) There is no road to your building. For which our officers including your husband had to climb the boundary walls of the other plot owner to go your home. (b) The adjoining plot owners have raised objection to allow extension of line to your building over their plot. (c) Hence, there is no route/road/passage to extend power supply to your building from the existing 250KVA nankar Sub-Station. (d) There are other two possibilities to avail power supply 1) By constructing LT line form the newly installed SS for a distance of about 300 Meter and another is 2) By installing a 10KVA SP mounted SS. As because the 11 KV line is very near to your building. The cost for these construction is to be borne by you and RoW issues if arises during erection of line and sub-station, is to be resolved by you. As because the 11 KV line is very near to your building. The cost for these construction is to be borne by you and RoW issues if arises during erection of line and sub-station, is to be resolved by you. (e) According to OERC Distribution Conditions of Supply Code-2004, Regulation-8 When the applicant’s premises have no frontage on a street and the service line from the licensee’s mains has to go over or under the adjoining premises of any other person (whether or not the adjoining premises is owned jointly by the applicant and such other person) the applicant shall obtain at his own expense necessary way-leave, licence, sanction, permission or other right or interest from the adjoining owner or co-owner. The licensee shall not supply power until such way-leave, licence, sanction or other right or interest is obtained and produced. Any extra expenditure incurred in placing the service line in accordance with the terms of way leave, licence sanction or other right or interest obtained from the owner or co-owner shall be borne by the applicant. No way leave, licence sanction or other right or interest once granted shall be cancelled or withdrawn, without giving six months notice by registered post to the engineer and the concerned consumber and a provisions to this effect should be incorporated in the terms of the way leave, licence, sanction or other right or interest arranged by the consumer and submitted to the licensee. The consumer may however arrange for alternative route, if any, to retain the supply of power. In all such cases the consumer shall bear the cost of diversion and other incidental expenses as may be estimated by the engineer. It shall not be incumbent on the licensee to ascertain the validity or adequacy of the way leave, licence, sanction or other right or interest obtained by the applicant. Notwithstanding anything stated above, any way leave(including way leave granted for supply to others) would be surrendered or alternate route would be accepted only if in the opinion of the licensee it is technically feasible. The decision of the licensee in this regard would be final.” 8. The Law Officer deputed by this Court on verification of the spot following the direction of this Court submitted a report clearly indicating the clear obstructions in facilitating the electricity connection to the opposite party No.2’s residence. The decision of the licensee in this regard would be final.” 8. The Law Officer deputed by this Court on verification of the spot following the direction of this Court submitted a report clearly indicating the clear obstructions in facilitating the electricity connection to the opposite party No.2’s residence. It is also reported by the Law Officer that the petitioner is not the only person but there are some other persons who do not get the electricity connection due to no passage for drawal of line to the particular area. From the report, it also reveals that there has been some encroachment of the Government land by some of the house owners, which also creates obstruction in getting a passage for drawl of the electricity connection to the opposite party No.2’s residence and such dispute cannot be resolved in the present proceeding. The Law Officer on discussing with the Sub-Divisional Officer (Electricity) to explore the possibility of drawl of the electricity connection, the petitioner No.2 stated to him that the electricity connection can only be provided from the existing concealed 11 KVA line which passes through the disputed vacant land i.e. under the dotted line of the map through a transformer. Husband of the opposite party No.2 also agreed to provide a right of way to put a 10KW/16KW transformer in front of the house of the opposite party No.2 for converting the 11 KVA to LT line. It also appears, some other residences are suffering for non-supply of power connection and it also appears, the opposite party No.2 is the only person presently interested to get the electricity connection in that way. 9. From the series of observations in the matter of difficulties in drawl of the electricity connection to the opposite party No.2’s residence, it appears, there is practical difficulties in drawing the electricity connection to the opposite party No.2’s residence except one possibility is coming by way of installation of a transformer specially to facilitate the opposite party No.2 provided the opposite party No.2 facilitating a portion of the land for the purpose of installation of 10KW/16KW transformer to have the power supply converting the power through the 11 KV line. 10. 10. Perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds, the impugned order has been passed without taking into consideration the impossibility of the drawl of the electricity connection to the opposite party No.2’s house and without taking into consideration the obstructions in the matter of drawl of the electricity connection to the opposite party No.2’s residence but however, considering from the point of view that the opposite party No.2 has already constructed a house and as the opposite party No.2 has a right to get the electricity connection but for the cost factor in facilitating the electricity connection by installation of an independent transformer for the purpose, under the constraint circumstances, this Court directs the opposite party No.2 to facilitate the area for installation of the 10KW/16KW transformer by the CESU authority and also deposit 25% of the cost of the total expenditure in the installation of the 10KW/16KW transformer and the balance expenditure be met by the CESU authority. Opposite party No.2 upon providing the land for installation of the 10KW/16KW transformer and further on her depositing 25% of the total cost for the purpose by the opposite party No.2 being intimated by the CESU authority, the petitioners shall do well in completing the exercise of putting the 10KW/16KW transformer in the allotted premises by the opposite party No.2 and make the power supply within a period of fifteen days thereafter. The cost involved be determined and intimated to the opposite party No.2 for her depositing her share of 25%. The opposite party No.2 is directed to comply her part within fifteen days thereafter. The award of the Permanent Lok Adalat is interfered with and modified to the extent indicated hereinabove. 11. The writ petition stands disposed of with the directions as given hereinabove. No cost.