JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. CMP No.8693 of 2025 By way of this application, a prayer has been made for recalling of order dated 22.04.2025 to the extent that respondent No.6 was proceeded against ex parte. 2. Having heard Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the applicant as well as the averments made in the application, the same is allowed. Order dated 22.04.2025 is modified to the extent that respondent No.6 is allowed to participate in the proceedings. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 informs the Court that the last order passed by the Court has been complied with. 4. With the consent of the parties, the matter is being heard at this stage on the basis of the pleadings already on record. 5. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- i) “That the respondent Board may be directed to immediately disconnect the electricity connection which has been illegally re-installed (in the name of Naveen Kumar) in the under construction building of the petitioner by operation of illegal means. ii) That the respondent Board may be directed to initiate inquiry in the matter and appropriate action including disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings may be ordered to be initiated against the delinquent officials/officers. iii) That the respondent No.2 may be directed to order investigation in the matter as the electricity meter has been installed at the instance of respondent No.6 after concoction and manipulation/forging of documents etc.” 6. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is owner of constructed premises, subject matter of the writ petition, possession of a part whereof was forcibly taken by respondent No.6. The petitioner has filed a Civil Suit against the said respondent, which is pending adjudication before the learned Trial Court. Learned Trial Court in an application filed by the petitioner was also pleased to pass an interim order, copy whereof is appended with the petition as Annexure P-4, in terms whereof, the Shyam Lal was restrain any electricity connection and do flooring work or making any changes etc. Shyam Lal played mischief and he approached Electricity Board with the application that let the electricity meter in the name of respondent No.7 Naveen Kumar be installed in his premises. Electricity Board also obliged him and it is in this backdrop that the petitioner has approached this Court praying for the relief already enumerated hereinabove. Shyam Lal played mischief and he approached Electricity Board with the application that let the electricity meter in the name of respondent No.7 Naveen Kumar be installed in his premises. Electricity Board also obliged him and it is in this backdrop that the petitioner has approached this Court praying for the relief already enumerated hereinabove. 7. When this case was listed on 22.04.2025, this Court passed the following order:- “As none has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.6, therefore, he is ordered to be proceeded against ex parte. Having heard Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. Sunita Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.1, in the interregnum, it is ordered that electricity meter which has been installed by respondent No.1 in the premises in dispute be forthwith disconnected and the factum of disconnection be reported to the Court on the next date of hearing. List on 25.04.2025.” 8. Today learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Electricity Board has apprised the Court that the order stands complied with. 9. Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 was asked by the Court as to whether the meter, which stands disconnected by the Electricity Board, was in the name of respondent No.6? Mr. Arun Kumar fairly submitted that it was not so. On the contrary Mr. Sumit Raj, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7 admitted that the meter was in the name of respondent No.7. He further submitted that in fact respondent No.7 himself had approached the Electricity Board requesting therein, as is evident from documents on record, for disconnecting the electricity, however, despite this Electricity Board obliged respondent No.6 for reasons best known to the Board. 10. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 at this stage submitted that the said respondent is running a shop of electrical goods and his entire business stands stalled as a result of disconnection. 11. This Court is of the considered view that Electricity Board could not have installed any meter in the premises in dispute in the name of respondent No.7 to benefit respondent No.6. 12. 11. This Court is of the considered view that Electricity Board could not have installed any meter in the premises in dispute in the name of respondent No.7 to benefit respondent No.6. 12. More so, it is not understood that when respondent No.7 itself approached Electricity Board for disconnection of the electricity meter, as is evident from Annexure-A (Colly.) appended with the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10, which was filed to implead respondent No.7 as a party, i.e. CMP No.25649 of 2024, why Electricity Board did not do the needful. Therefore, it is evident and apparent that the Electricity Board was in hand in glove with respondent No.6. 13. Incidentally, the documents appended with the petition demonstrates that Electricity Board expressed its inability to disconnect the meter on the pretext that this writ petition was pending adjudication ignoring the fact that there was no order passed by this Court restraining the Electricity Board from disconnecting the meter and rather this Court otherwise could not have passed any such order, because, the petitioner herein was the landlord and not the tenant. 14. Accordingly, in the light of the above observations, this writ petition is allowed by holding that the act of the respondent-Board of supplying electricity in the disputed premises in favour of respondent No.6 by affixing a meter in the name of respondent No.7 despite the objection of respondent No.7 is per se bad in law and is a clear act of colourable exercise of power with the ill intent to help respondent No.615 Cost of Rs.25,000/- each is imposed upon respondent No.1 as well as respondent No.6 which shall be paid by the said respondents to the petitioner. As far as Electricity Board is concerned, at the first instance, the Board shall pay the cost to the petitioner and thereafter it shall recover it from the erring Officer who was at the helm of the affairs at the time when the electricity meter was installed in the premises in dispute in the name of respondent No.7. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.