situated. In the instant case, I find that the 5th respondent has not examined the matter in the light of the powers available under the aforementioned statutory Rules and further, the 5th respondent appears to have lost sight of the fact that the request of the petitioner for shifting the electric line to the new location had found favour with the respondent Board also. As a matter of fact, even the 3rd and 4th respondents had initially requested for shifting of the electric line although, for reasons best known to them, they resiled from the said stand later on. At any rate, I am of the view that the request of the petitioner, that found favour with the respondent board, and under circumstances where the petitioner had undertaken to bear the costs incidental to the shifting works, should have been considered on merits by the 5th respondent. I also find that the 3rd and 4th respondents cannot legally insist on getting an electric connection to their premises, through any particular route, more so when it is not in dispute that they will not be called upon to effect any structural alteration with regard to their metering equipment or incur any costs associated with the re-routing. Resultantly, I quash Ext.P11 order and
