JUDGMENT : S. Sujatha, J. 1. The petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.2 to 5 to restore the electricity connections to the petitioner's premises by restoring the electricity connection and for other reliefs. 2. The petitioner is claiming to be the owner of the property bearing No.76/4, 30th Cross, 4th Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru-560001, measuring 140' X 170' consisting of residential houses and commercial premises. The official respondents have sanctioned the power supply to the property in question. However, the same is recommended for disconnection based on the opinion of the Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. A notice dated 24.01.2019 was issued by the Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company Ltd., calling upon the petitioner to furnish the supportive validating records to prove the authenticity of the sanctioned plan relating to the property in question. Reply dated 28.01.2019 was submitted by the petitioner and further vide letters dated 31.01.2019 and 01.02.2019 personal hearing was sought for, before a decision is taken, aggrieved by the notice dated 24.01.2019, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.Padmanabha V. Mahale representing the learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 ['Act' for short] submitted that the owner or occupier of any premises is entitled to power supply which is the basic amenity. The action of the respondent Nos.1 to 5 on the dictation of the other authority giving threat of disconnection of power supply in the event of not producing the documents called for, is nothing but arbitrary exercise of the authorities. Learned Senior Counsel argued that the petitioner was before this Court in the earlier round of litigation and pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the documents were placed before the Authorities. Being satisfied with the same, direction was issued to continue the power supply. That being the position, taking a contrary view now by the official respondents is wholly unjustifiable. 4. Learned counsel Sri.P.Prasanna Kumar appearing for the official respondents inviting the attention of this Court to Section 16 of the Act would submit that the conditions of Supply framed, more particularly condition No.9.01 and 43 demands, copy of sanction plan of the building/complex showing the built up area of the building, proof of ownership/GPA/occupancy and certain other documents to be examined by the jurisdictional sub division office of the licensee for providing of the electricity connection. On coming to know that the sanctioned plan relied upon by the petitioner was reported to be fake document, further documents were called for. However, the petitioner without submitting the relevant documents sought for, furnished some copies of the orders of this Court, without waiting for the orders to be passed, has rushed to this Court. 5. Learned counsel Sri.S.Venkatesh appearing for the respondent No.6 submitted that the petitioner has no valid sanction plan. The plan relied upon by the petitioner was held to be not valid and has been quashed in W.P.Nos.29427-29428/2019 and the same has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to power supply in terms of the Act and the conditions of supply. 6. I have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 7. This Court in W.P.No.17360/2015 has directed the petitioner to produce copy of the sanction plan before the concerned respondent authority BESCOM who in turn was directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the respondent No.6. It is the contention of the petitioner that in compliance of the order passed by this Court, the petitioner has furnished the sanction plan. It appears that pursuant to the order passed by the authorities on 09.07.2018, genuineness of the sanction plan has been disputed by the BBMP. Hence, to ascertain the authenticity relating to the sanction plan, documents are called for. In such circumstances, it was obligatory for the petitioner to furnish the sanction plan to substantiate his claim. But instead of the same, the petitioner has sought for personal hearing and before a decision is taken by the official respondents has rushed to this Court challenging the action of the official respondents. 8. It is well settled that the truth is invincible, in order to get the veracity of the documents examined by the official respondents, an opportunity has been given to the petitioner and reply is also said to have been filed. 9. 8. It is well settled that the truth is invincible, in order to get the veracity of the documents examined by the official respondents, an opportunity has been given to the petitioner and reply is also said to have been filed. 9. In such circumstances, without going into the merits or demerits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the official respondents to take a decision in the matter in accordance with law in an expedite manner preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the respondent No.6. All the rights and contentions of the parties are left open. 10. It is made clear that if the sanction plan was placed on the earlier occasion before the authorities, there is no inhibition for the petitioner to furnish the documents to substantiate the same and to prove the same as a valid sanction plan. The petitioner shall appear before the respondent No.5 on 18.07.2019 without waiting for any notice. Till a decision is to be taken by the official respondents, power supply shall be continued to the property in question. With the aforesaid observations and directions, writ petition stands disposed of.