JUDGMENT : RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J. 1. The challenge in this petition is made to the Communication dated 26.08.2022, made by the respondent no. 2, The Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited Electricity Distribution Division, Rudrapur (“UPCL”). By it, the petitioner has been informed that new electricity connection to the residents of the petitioner’s society shall be given in accordance with the judgment of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Udham Singh Nagar (“CGRF”) at Rudrapur, passed in Complaint No. 99/2021-22. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner’s association is a Resident Welfare Association of the Metropolis City situated in SIDCUL, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, which is responsible for the maintenance and up-keeping of the common areas of the Metropolis City. There were certain disputes in the beginning, which were settled by the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (RERA). The Metropolis City is having self operated STP, self operated water supply system and maintenance of house keeping of the other common areas. It also has a single point bulk supply connection from which the power supply is given to all the residents. As per the infrastructure developed, individual house owners/residents are provided the pre-paid meter, and the sanctioned load is duly monitored. A system is also put in place that in case the load exceeds the sanctioned load, the electricity line trips. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no. 1, Mr. Rajiv Bhatnagar made a complaint before the CGRF under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2005. In that proceedings, in fact, the petitioner’s association has no objection to the effect that individual connection may be issued to the complainant. The CGRF, by its judgment and order dated 17.06.2022, has directed the UPCL to provide individual electricity connection to the residents, including the respondent no. 1, pursuant to which the impugned communication has been made. It is also the case of the petitioner that if individual electricity connections are provided from the bulk connection, the petitioner may not be in a position to monitor the consumption, and in case of excess load than the sanctioned load, any mechanism may not be put in place, which may ultimately disturb all the other residents of the petitioner’s society. The petitioner raised its voice, but it was unanswered. Hence, the petition. 5. The respondent no. The petitioner raised its voice, but it was unanswered. Hence, the petition. 5. The respondent no. 1 has filed its counter affidavit. According to him, the electricity connection is not in the name of the petitioner. It is in the name of the developer, who is the respondent no. 3, M/s Assotech-Supertech JV. 6. The respondent no. 1 has relied on Regulation 3.6 of UERC (The electricity Supply Code, Release of New Connection and Related Matters) Regulations, 2020 (“the Regulation 2020”) and has stated that this Regulation entitles the respondent no. 1 for individual connection. The respondent no. 2 in its counter affidavit has also relied on Regulation 3.6 of the Regulation 2020 stating that the respondent no. 1 is entitled for individual connection. 7. The respondent no. 3 was issued notice. Despite service, the respondent no. 3 has not been represented. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner’s Society is functioning in a proper manner; there has been no complaint whatsoever with regard to the excessive charges; it is a huge city; all the affairs of the Society are being run in accordance with the applicable Rules and Regulations. He would submit that, in case, individual connections are provided from the facility of the petitioner, it may create lot of problems; overloading may not be controlled and the petitioner would be burdened with multiple other acts of maintaining individual data, etc.; it would lead to some financial impediments because in case, individual connection is given from the existing facility of the petitioner, the petitioner would get continuous electricity supply through Generator Set, even without paying for it. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 would submit that in view of Regulation 3.6 of the Regulation 2020, the respondent no. 1 is entitled to get individual connection. It is also argued that the respondent no. 3 has also issued a “No Objection Certificate” in favour of the respondent no. 1 for obtaining individual connection. 10. What is challenged is a communication dated 26.08.2022, issued by the respondent no. 2, by which, the petitioner has been informed that individual connection shall be issued in accordance with the order of CGRF. In essence what has been challenged, impliedly is the judgment and order dated 17.06.2022 of CGRF passed in Consumer Complaint No. 99/2021-22. 10. What is challenged is a communication dated 26.08.2022, issued by the respondent no. 2, by which, the petitioner has been informed that individual connection shall be issued in accordance with the order of CGRF. In essence what has been challenged, impliedly is the judgment and order dated 17.06.2022 of CGRF passed in Consumer Complaint No. 99/2021-22. In this order the CGRF has quoted Regulation 3.5 of the Regulations 2020, which reads as follows: “3.5 Single Point Bulk Supply for Domestic, Non Domestic and Mixed Load Categories: 1. Single Point Bulk Supply Connection shall only be allowed for Sanctioned/Contracted Load above 75 kw with single point metering for further distribution to the end users. Provided that such users shall not be restricted from applying for individual connections. The person who has taken the single point supply shall be responsible for all payments of electricity charges to the Licensee and collection from the end users/consumers as per tariff determined for such consumers. The Licensee shall ensure that tariff being charged from users/consumers does not exceed the approved tariff applicable for Single Point Supply (SPBS) connections as per Tariff Order issued by the commission. 2. The person who has taken the single point supply shall also be deemed to be an agent of Licensee to undertake distribution of electricity for the premises for which single point supply is given under seventh proviso to section 14 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and distribution licensee shall be responsible for compliance of all provisions of the Act and Rules and Regulations thereunder within such area.” The CGRF has directed for sanctioning individual connection. The impugned order is in compliance of the order dated 17.06.2022 of CGRF. 11. The respondent nos.1 and 2 have placed reliance on Regulation 3.6(6) of the Regulation 2020, which reads as hereunder: “3.6 New Electricity Connection in Residential Complex/Non-Residential Complex/Multiplex/Malls/Townships etc. to be constructed by Developer ..................................... (6) Where provisions of single point bulk supply exists, the individual consumer connected from the network of developer/builder/CGHS within such complex shall be liable to pay the tariff charges applicable for Single Point Bulk Supply (SPBS) connection as per Tariff Order issued by the Commission. to be constructed by Developer ..................................... (6) Where provisions of single point bulk supply exists, the individual consumer connected from the network of developer/builder/CGHS within such complex shall be liable to pay the tariff charges applicable for Single Point Bulk Supply (SPBS) connection as per Tariff Order issued by the Commission. Provided that in the complex where the developer/builder/CGHS is having Single Point Bulk Supply (SPBS) connection used for exclusively domestic purposes, the individual consumer/user within such complex shall not be restricted from seeking individual domestic connection directly from the distribution Licensee. Such connections shall be released preferably through Pre-paid meters either provided by the distribution Licensee or procured by the consumer as per CEA Metering Regulations, utilizing the existing infrastructure created by the developer/builder/CGHS. Bills of SPBS connection shall be duly adjusted by the monthly energy consumption of such individual consumer having connection from the Licensee. Further in case the distribution Licensee takes over the electrical infrastructure of such complex, the responsibility of maintenance of the same shall lie with distribution Licensee and in other cases developer/builder/RWA/CGHS shall be responsible for the maintenance.” 12. It has been the case of respondent no. 1 that, in fact, the bulk connection is not in the name of the petitioner, it is in the name of the respondent no. 3, the developer. It is categorical case of the respondent no. 2 that the respondent no. 3, the developer has given “No Objection Certificate” for sanctioning individual connection to the respondent no. 2. This “No Objection Certificate” has been enclosed as Annexure No. 3 to the counter affidavit. 13. In fact, the petitioner has no case. The bulk connection is not in the name of the petitioner. The bulk connection is in the name of the respondent no. 3, the Developer. Regulation 3.5 and 3.6 of the Regulation 2020 make provisions with regard to individual connection in such situation. CGRF order dated 17.06.2022 is based on Regulation 3.5 of Regulation 2020. CGRF has directed that individual connection be provided to the respondent no. 1. That order is still in existence. 14. Having considered, this Court is of the view that there is no reason to make any interference in this petition. 15. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 16. The petition is dismissed.