ORDER : R.NATARAJ, J. The petitioner has challenged an order bearing No. dated 08.05.2020 passed by respondent No.2, whereby it held that respondent No.4 is entitled to proceed in accordance with law against the construction put up by the petitioner. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondent No. 4 to issue a No Objection Certificate to secure electricity connection to the building in question and to allot a door number to the building constructed by him. 2. (i) The petitioner claims that he is the absolute owner of the property bearing Sy.No.129/3D2B (P) measuring 13 cents situate in Bajpe Village, and the property bearing Survey No.145/15A measuring 10 cents situate in Permude Village of Mangaluru Taluk. He contends that he obtained an order from the Mangaluru Urban Development Authority to amalgamate both properties, pursuant to which a single site plan was approved. Upon such approval, he sought a licence and sanction of a building plan from the Mangaluru Urban Development Authority. The petitioner claims that permission was granted by the said Authority and thereafter the building plan was sanctioned by the Permude Village Panchayath and Bajpe Village Panchayath. (ii) The petitioner states that he constructed the building in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated under the sanctioned plan and the licence. He further states that, for the purpose of providing safety, security, and additional usable space to the residents, he put up a covering over the terrace. After the petitioner installed sheets over the terrace area, respondent No.4 issued a notice dated 27.12.2017 alleging that the petitioner had put up an additional floor in violation of the sanctioned plan and the licence and directed the petitioner to stop the construction. (iii) After receipt of the notice, the petitioner submitted a reply on 01.01.2018 stating that he had not put up any extra floor as contended therein. He further stated that he did not violate any of the terms of the sanctioned plan or the licence granted. Respondent No.4 thereafter issued an endorsement dated 08.02.2018 stating that even for covering the terrace, the petitioner was required to obtain a No Objection Certificate from the Mangaluru Urban Development Authority. The petitioner challenged the said endorsement before respondent No.3 in Appeal No.TAPAMAM:TP:May-14/17-18/M.G. The Chief Executive Officer of respondent No.3 directed the Assistant Executive Engineer to examine the matter and submit a report. The petitioner challenged the said endorsement before respondent No.3 in Appeal No.TAPAMAM:TP:May-14/17-18/M.G. The Chief Executive Officer of respondent No.3 directed the Assistant Executive Engineer to examine the matter and submit a report. Accordingly the Assistant Executive Engineer submitted a report stating that the building consisted of four floors and that the petitioner had installed galvalume sheets on the terrace. On the basis of the said report, respondent No.3 passed an order dated 03.06.2019 to take suitable action and to ensure necessary arrangements are made for disposal of waste generated in the building. After disposal of the appeal, the petitioner approached respondent No.4 and the Bajpe Village Panchayath seeking issuance of a No Objection Certificate for securing electricity connection and for allotment of a door number to the building. (iv) After receipt of the representation, respondent No.3 contrary to the order passed by the Executive Officer passed a resolution dated 13.06.2019 stating that it had decided to file a review petition against the order passed by the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat. The petitioner again approached the Appellate Authority and the Chief Executive Officer of Taluk Panchayat, Mangaluru requesting that a direction be issued to respondent No.4. Based on the above, the Chief Executive Officer of Taluk Panchayat directed respondent No.4, by an order dated 19.06.2019 to issue a No Objection Certificate to obtain electricity connection to the building. (v) Despite this direction, respondent No.4 issued an endorsement dated 21.06.2019 stating that the power of attorney executed in favour of the petitioner's agent did not empower the agent to execute a bond and undertaking, and therefore, the owner of the property had to execute the same and also execute a relinquishment deed in favour of respondent No.4. Aggrieved by the refusal to issue the No Objection Certificate and to allot a door number, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 21.06.2019 to the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayath. Pursuant thereto, a communication dated 26.06.2019 was issued to the Chief Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat directing that suitable action be taken to allot a door number and to issue the No Objection Certificate to obtain electricity. (vi) Respondent No.4 and the Bajpe Village Panchayat did not consider the request of the petitioner, which compelled him to file W.P.No.30130/2019 before this Court. In the meanwhile, respondent No.4 filed W.P. No.45552/2019 challenging the orders dated 03.06.2019 and 19.06.2019 passed by the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat. (vi) Respondent No.4 and the Bajpe Village Panchayat did not consider the request of the petitioner, which compelled him to file W.P.No.30130/2019 before this Court. In the meanwhile, respondent No.4 filed W.P. No.45552/2019 challenging the orders dated 03.06.2019 and 19.06.2019 passed by the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat. This Court, by an order dated 29.11.2019 directed respondent No.4 and the Bajpe Village Panchayath to consider issuance of a No Objection Certificate to secure electricity, subject to the final outcome of the proceedings. Following the said order, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 09.12.2019 to respondent No.4 and the Bajpe Village Panchayath to issue the No Objection Certificate. The Bajpe Village Panchayath thereafter issued the No Objection Certificate, pursuant to which electricity connection was provided to the building in question. (vii) In the meanwhile, respondent No.4 filed an appeal before respondent No.2 in Appeal No.41/2019-20 challenging the orders dated 03.06.2019 and 19.06.2019. The petitioner opposed the appeal. However, respondent No.2 by the impugned order, permitted respondent No.4 to take necessary action in accordance with law. The petitioner is therefore before this Court challenging the said order and also has sought for a direction to respondent No.4 to issue a No Objection Certificate and to allot a door number to the building constructed by him. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the interim order granted by this Court, the Bajpe Village Panchayath issued a No Objection Certificate and the building in question is now serviced with electricity. He however contends that respondent No.4 has not yet allotted a door number, causing inconvenience to the petitioner as the building continues to remain without any identification. He therefore prays that No Objection Certificate issued by the Bajpe Village Panchayat be regularised and respondent No.4 be directed to allot a door number. 4. (i) The petition is opposed by respondent No.4, who submits that in W.P. No.45552/2019 filed by the Panchayat, this Court by an order dated 17.11.2025 permitted the Panchayat to proceed against the building constructed by the petitioner in accordance with law. He further submits that the respondent No.2 by way of the impugned order, also permitted the Panchayat to proceed in accordance with law, if it is found that the construction put up by the petitioner is not in accordance with the sanctioned plan or the licence. He further submits that the respondent No.2 by way of the impugned order, also permitted the Panchayat to proceed in accordance with law, if it is found that the construction put up by the petitioner is not in accordance with the sanctioned plan or the licence. He therefore, contends that the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 cannot be set aside, as the same stands reaffirmed by this Court in W.P.No.45552/2019. (ii) He also submits that pursuant to an interim order granted by this Court, the Bajpe Village Panchayath issued a No Objection Certificate. However, since the construction in question is not in accordance with law, the petitioner cannot claim a right to secure a No Objection Certificate to obtain electricity. He therefore submits that the interim order passed by this Court and the consequent No Objection Certificate issued by the Panchayath are liable to be set aside and that a direction be issued to the Panchayath to consider issuance of a No Objection Certificate only after conducting a survey to ascertain whether the construction is in accordance with the sanctioned plan and the licence. As regards allotment of a door number, the learned Senior Counsel submits that allotting a door number would amount to regularising the unauthorised construction put up by the petitioner and therefore no direction in that regard can be issued. 5. I have considered submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned senior counsel for respondent No. 4. 6. Respondent No.4 refused to issue a No Objection Certificate enabling the petitioner to obtain electricity connection to the building in question on the ground that the construction was not in accordance with the sanctioned plan and the licence. This resulted in multiple rounds of proceedings before respondent Nos.2 and 3 and several communications inter se. 6. Respondent No.4 refused to issue a No Objection Certificate enabling the petitioner to obtain electricity connection to the building in question on the ground that the construction was not in accordance with the sanctioned plan and the licence. This resulted in multiple rounds of proceedings before respondent Nos.2 and 3 and several communications inter se. The petitioner and respondent No.4 thereafter approached this Court in WP No.30130/2019 and W.P.No.45552/2019, wherein this Court vide order dated 29.11.2019 held that "having considered the submission of learned counsel for both parties and taking note of the undertaking of the petitioner, the respondent authorities to consider issue NOC for issuance of electricity connection by the appropriate authority for the present after taking note of the petitioner's undertaking, which is subject to the final orders to be passed." Following the above interim order, Bajpe Village Panchayath issued a No Objection Certificate, consequent to which, the petitioner's building is now serviced with electricity. Under such circumstances, it is not prudent at this stage to disconnect the electricity supply already provided. However, as rightly submitted by learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.4, this Court in W.P. No. 45552/2019 preserved the right of the respondent No.4 to take suitable action against the construction put up by the petitioner if it violated the sanctioned plan or the licence. The impugned order passed by respondent No.2 also permits respondent No.4 to take appropriate action if the construction is found to be unauthorised or contrary to law. Therefore, the direction issued by respondent No.2 stood reiterated by this Court in W.P. No.45552/2019 and hence does not warrant any interference in the present petition. 7. Accordingly, the challenge to the order dated 08.05.2020 passed by respondent No.2 is rejected. In so far as the No Objection Certificate is concerned, since this Court had directed issuance of the No Objection Certificate subject to the final result of the writ petition, and since the writ petition itself was disposed off permitting respondent No.4 to take suitable action, it is appropriate that the electricity supply provided to the petitioner's building is continued until respondent No.4 takes suitable action in accordance with law. 8. It is made clear that if respondent No.4 upon due investigation, finds that the building is in accordance with law, the electricity supply granted to the petitioner's building shall stand regularised. 8. It is made clear that if respondent No.4 upon due investigation, finds that the building is in accordance with law, the electricity supply granted to the petitioner's building shall stand regularised. If however, the building is found to be unauthorised or not in accordance with law, respondent No.4 may take steps to recall the No Objection Certificate and instruct the concerned electricity supply company to disconnect the electricity. 9. As regards, allotment of a door number, the contention advanced by the learned counsel for respondent No.4 that allotting a door number would amount to regularisation is neither acceptable nor justified. Mere allotment of a door number does not in any manner, regularise the construction put up by the petitioner. Even assessment of tax or collect of tax by respondent No.4 would not insulate the property from action in accordance with law. 10. In that view of matter, respondent No.4 is directed to allot a door number to the petitioner's building within a period of 04 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is needless to state that allotment of the door number shall also remain subject to the final decision that may be taken by respondent No.4 as to whether the construction is in accordance with law or not. 11. The writ petition stands disposed off on the above terms. 12. In view of disposal of main petition, pending interlocutory applications if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand rejected.