JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. This writ petition is under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of direction upon the opposite parties to give electric service connection to the house of the petitioner on the basis of his application and payment already made within stipulated period. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that he is residing in his own ancestral house in complete darkness without any electricity connection, as such made an application on 05.09.2012 in the prescribed form with other requisite documents before the local electricity authority for connection of electricity supply to his house. After receiving the aforesaid application, opposite party no.3 has issued a letter vide no.356 dated 18.09.2012 directing him to produce his documents regarding his residential land/ROR and receipt of holding tax and to intimate if any civil dispute over his homestead land before any court is pending, if so, it is not possible for the licensee to supply new electricity connection. After getting such notice, the petitioner has submitted the copy of ROR of his homestead land before the opposite party no.3, being not satisfied with the same, the electricity connection was denied by the authority on the ground that a civil suit being Civil Suit No.835 of 2011 is pending over the property in question in which an order to maintain status quo on the plot in question, has already been passed. The petitioner claims that he is entitled to get the electricity connection in the capacity of 'occupier' and in view of the provision as contained under section 43(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003, read with regulation 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Code, 2004 but contrary to the aforesaid provision the electricity connection is not being provided, as such the instant writ petition has been filed. 3. While on the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party submits that on the basis of an application made by him temporary connection was given in the aforesaid premises but since it was objected by one of the title holder, who is party to the Civil Suit No.835 of 2011, the electricity connection has been disconnected. 3. While on the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party submits that on the basis of an application made by him temporary connection was given in the aforesaid premises but since it was objected by one of the title holder, who is party to the Civil Suit No.835 of 2011, the electricity connection has been disconnected. It has been stated by the learned counsel that merely on account of the fact that an applicant is occupier, does not mean that electricity connection will be provided, rather occupier always mean the legal occupier and even if the provision of Section 43(1) will be taken into consideration, the same stipulates that the electricity line shall be provided on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises but the provision of Section 43(1) cannot be read with isolation, rather it is to be read together with the provision of Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission Distribution (Condition and Supply) Code, 2004 wherein under the provision of regulation 4(1) it has been provided that application after filling in shall be signed by the owner or the lawful occupier with the consent of the owner of the premises for which supply is required. In view thereof if the provision as contained in Section 43(1) will be read together with the provision of Regulation 4(1) of the Code, 2004, the petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right the electricity connection. 4. In response learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits by referring to the provision of regulation 7 of the Code, 2004 that the petitioner is ready to executive an indemnity bond but even then the electricity connection has not been provided. He has relied upon the judgment rendered by this court in the case of S. Padma vs. Central Electricity Supply Utility (CESU) and Others passed in W.P.(C) No.11358 of 2012, disposed of on 30.11.2012, order passed in W.P.(C) No.9186 of 2004, disposed of on 21.09.2004 and judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Chandu Khamaru vs. Smt. Nayan Malik and Others reported in AIR 2011 SC 2897 . 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and after appreciation of their rival submissions it is evident that the petitioner is claiming electricity connection in the premises in question. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and after appreciation of their rival submissions it is evident that the petitioner is claiming electricity connection in the premises in question. Admittedly the petitioner is not the holder of any title over the land in question, however he claims that in the ROR his name has been entered but it is settled that merely mentioning the name in the record of right, right and title over the property in question does not occur. The petitioner has made an application for getting electricity connection which was temporarily been provided but when objected by one of the co-sharers of the property in question, the same has been disconnected, hence this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of direction upon the opposite party to provide electricity connection in the premises on the ground that he is residing in the aforesaid premises, hence he is an occupier and in terms of the provision as contained in section 43(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 he is entitled to get electricity connection, this submission has been disputed by the learned counsel for opposite parties. This court, in order to adjudicate upon the issue, thinks it proper to go through the legal provision. The Electricity Act, 2003 contains definition under section 2 wherein the definition of 'consumer' has been given which means any person who is supplied with electricity for his own use by the licensee or the Government or by any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity. Thus the definition of 'consumer' only speaks regarding the status after getting the electricity connection but here the issue is prior to getting the status of 'consumer'. It is evident that the 'occupier' has not been defined under the definition part under the Act, 2003, however under the provision of Section 43(1) of the Act, 2003 it has been provided here under as:- “43. Duty to supply on request. It is evident that the 'occupier' has not been defined under the definition part under the Act, 2003, however under the provision of Section 43(1) of the Act, 2003 it has been provided here under as:- “43. Duty to supply on request. - (1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, every distribution licensee, shall, on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises, give supply of electricity to such premises, within one month after receipt of the application requiring such supply: Provided that where such supply requires extension of distribution mains, or commissioning of new sub-stations, the distribution licensee shall supply the electricity to such premises immediately after such extension or commissioning or within such period as may be specified by the Appropriate Commission: Provided further that in case of a village on hamlet or area wherein no provision for supply of electricity exists, the Appropriate Commission may extend the said period as it may consider necessary for electrification of such village or hamlet or area.” It is evident from the provision as contained in Section 43(1) that save as otherwise provided in this Act, every distribution licensee, shall, on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises, give supply of electricity to such premises, within one month after receipt of the application requiring such supply. The aforesaid provision speaks regarding the application to be filed by the owner or occupier. Under the Act, 2003 there is no definition of 'occupier'. The State Government has come out with the Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2004 which has been incorporated in exercise of power conferred on it by Section 181(2) (t), (v) (w) & (x) read with Part - VI of the Electricity Act, 2003 (Act 36 of 2003), Odisha Electricity Reform Act, 1995 (Act 2 of 1995) and all other powers enabling it in that behalf to make regulations to govern distribution and supply of electricity and procedures thereof such as system of billing, modality of payment of bills, the powers, functions and obligations of the distribution licensees and/or suppliers and the rights and obligations of consumers. In the Code, 2004 the 'occupier' has been defined under the provision of Section 2(dd) which means the owner or person in occupation of the premises where energy is used or proposed to be used. In the Code, 2004 the 'occupier' has been defined under the provision of Section 2(dd) which means the owner or person in occupation of the premises where energy is used or proposed to be used. The provision of section 3 stipulates to make an application for supply of energy. While Section 4(1) stipulates that after filling the application, the same shall be signed by the owner or the lawful occupier with the consent of the owner of the premises for which supply is required. If the provision of Section 43(1) read with the provision of Section 2 (dd) and the provision of section 4(1), it is evident that the application is to be filed for getting electricity connection by the owner or the lawful occupier with the consent of the owner of the premises, meaning thereby the owner or the lawful occupier can make an application with the consent of the owner if the owner is not applicant. Sub-regulation 7 of regulation 4 stipulates regarding damage part that if an applicant who is not the owner of the premises occupied by him, shall execute an indemnify bond, indemnifying the licensee for any damages arising on account of any dispute arising out of supply of power to the premises. It is evident from regulation 7, upon which learned counsel for the petitioner has given much emphasis that the same is only for recovery of the damage for which an indemnity bond is to be executed if the applicant is not the owner. It is further evident that if the owner is the applicant and the occupier who wants to take electricity connection with the consent of the lawful owner is to execute an indemnity bond but if there is no consent of the owner, merely by executing an indemnity bond the electricity connection cannot be provided as has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner since sub-regulation 7 of regulation 4 only concerned with the damage and not with respect to providing electric connection. In the light of this legal proposition now the fact of the case in hand is to be seen. Here admittedly the petitioner is not the lawful owner but is claiming electricity connection since he is occupier of the said premises. In the light of this legal proposition now the fact of the case in hand is to be seen. Here admittedly the petitioner is not the lawful owner but is claiming electricity connection since he is occupier of the said premises. It is also admitted position that over the said property a civil suit is going on being C.S. No.835 of 2011 in which an interim order to maintain status quo has been passed. It is also not in dispute that when the petitioner has made application, electricity connection was provided but when objected by one of the shareholder of the property in question, it has been disconnected. According to the considered view of this court, since as per the provision as referred herein above, the consent of the lawful owner is required to be given for getting electricity connection and in its absence it cannot be provided, admittedly in this case the lawful owner has not given consent, hence the reason expressed by the licensee in not providing the electricity connection cannot be said to be unjust and improper. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment rendered by this court in W.P.(C) No.11358 of 2012 in the case of S. Padma vs. CESU (supra) but the factual aspect revolved round in the aforesaid writ petition was that the same was related to an eviction suit in which the eviction suit was filed by and land-lord against the tenant who has made an application for getting electricity connection and when denied then in that pretext the court has said keeping the fact into consideration that the applicant in the aforesaid writ petition was a tenant and an eviction suit was going on and in the meanwhile not providing electricity connection since it comes under basic amenities, has been said to be improper. So far as judgment rendered in W.P.(C) No.9186 of 2004, it is also a case of a tenant in whose favour electricity connection was denied and taking into consideration the principle of basic amenities, not providing electricity connection has been deprecated. So far as judgment rendered in W.P.(C) No.9186 of 2004, it is also a case of a tenant in whose favour electricity connection was denied and taking into consideration the principle of basic amenities, not providing electricity connection has been deprecated. So far as the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chandu Khamaru (supra) the factual aspect in the aforesaid case relates to not providing electricity connection to a house owned by the applicant of the said appeal, as such the order has been passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court deprecating the fact of not providing electricity connection but here the factual aspect is quite different to the judgment referred by Hon'ble Apex Court since it is a case where the petitioner admittedly is not having the ownership, no consent of the owner and a civil suit is going on wherein an order of status quo has been passed, as such the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the electricity is the basic requirement and without electricity no one can live but the question is that right can only said to be accrued if provided through a statute and if anybody is not entitled to get a right under the provision of a statute, no direction can be passed by any court of law otherwise it will be said to be an order passed contrary to the statutory provision and purely on sympathy and it is settled that on sympathy no order can be passed rather an applicant is to establish his/her right and when the authority is not granting electricity connection which is under challenge, then this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is suppose to see the legality and propriety of the action taken by the authority. As per the discussion made herein above both on law and facts, according to my considered view the petitioner has failed to make out a case for passing any positive direction in his favour, as such the writ petition fails and it is dismissed.