3.The petitioner would state that the respondent should not insist upon a No Objection Certificate from the other co-owners for transferring the application given by Palaniappa Gounder to the name of the petitioner. However, in terms of Clause 27 of the Electricity Distribution Code, an application for transfer the name of the applicant could not be made only after hearing the other co-owners of the property/well. Since the application given by Palaniappa Gounder was pending consideration and no orders were passed on the application, the rule or the law which governs such application on the date of consideration alone will be relevant. Therefore, the request have been made by the petitioner, at this juncture, the application requires to be considered in accordance with the Distribution Code and this mandates that the co-owners have to give their No Objection Certificate or consent for transfer. However, it appears that the legal heirs of the other two co-owners have raised certain objections and therefore, the question of obtaining a No Objection Certificate from them would not arise. However, the 1st respondent should consider the merits of such objections as to whether they are genuine and germane to the issue. The petitioner would state that transfer of service connection has been effected from the names of the other two co-owners without the consent of the petitioner or his predecessors in title. This aspect also has to be taken into consideration.
