Judgment 1. In this application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to forbear from giving effect to or pursuant to or in furtherance of the letter dt. 21-5-1982 issued by the Assistant Electrical Engineer (respondent 4) as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application as also the letter dt. 17-8-1982 passed by the same authority as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application. By reason of the aforementioned letters the petitioner was informed that it has to pay Rs. 89,060.49 P. by way of arrears, failing whereof its electrical connection would be disconnected. 2. According to the petitioner it had not been receiving regular supply of electrical energy and there had been occasions when non-supply of electrical energy by way of tripping etc. took place. The petitioner contended that as respondent Mithila Area Electricity Board failed to supply the electrical energy constantly, the annual minimum guaranteed charges are not payable. The petitioner has further contended that if the annual minimum guaranteed charges are not payable, consequently the delayed payment surcharge will also not be payable. It is admitted that the petitioner has filed a representation before the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Mithila Area Electricity Board in terms of Cl. 13 of the agreement. In Jai Bharat Udyog V/s. Bihar State Electricity Board (C. W.J.C. No. 254 of 1986) a Bench of this Court has held that if the Bihar State Electricity Board fails to supply electrical energy for a period of 6 hours in a day, they will not be entitled to recover the annual minimum guaranteed charges. This aspect of the matter has again been considered in the case of Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. V/s. Bihar State Electricity Board 1988 BLT (Rep) 428: ( AIR 1989 Pat 119 ) wherein the aforementioned decision of the Division Bench has been clarified to mean that the Bihar State Electricity Board must supply the electrical energy for a period of six hours when the petitioner runs its factory or otherwise requires the supply of electrical energy. Ltd. V/s. Bihar State Electricity Board 1988 BLT (Rep) 428: ( AIR 1989 Pat 119 ) wherein the aforementioned decision of the Division Bench has been clarified to mean that the Bihar State Electricity Board must supply the electrical energy for a period of six hours when the petitioner runs its factory or otherwise requires the supply of electrical energy. However, the Supreme Court recently in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board V/s. Dhanawat Rice Mills, (1989) 1 JT 425 : (1989) 1 SCC 452 : ( AIR 1989 SC 1030 ) held that the consumer shall be entitled to a proportionate deduction of minimum guaranteed charges if the Bihar State Electricity Board is unable to supply electric energy in terms of the agreement by way of tripping etc. 3. By order dt. 22-9-1982 a Bench of this Court at the time of admission observed as follows:- "It is, however, made perfectly clear that the pendency of this writ application in this Court shall not stand in the way of the Arbitrator deciding the matter in accordance with law as soon as possible." 4. Mr. Pawan Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as also Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the Board, when questioned, could not inform me as to whether the respondent 2 had disposed of the representation of the petitioner in terms of Cl. 13 of the agreement or not. In view of the fact that the matter has been pending for a long time before respondent 2, it is expected that by now he must have disposed of the said matter. However, if the respondent 2 has yet disposed of the said matter, it is directed that the same would be disposed of keeping in view the decision of this Court and the Supreme Court as aforementioned within two months from the date of receipt of this order. The petitioner, needless to say, if aggrieved by the order passed by respondent 2 in the said matter, would be entitled to take recourse to law. It may be further mentioned that at the time of admission, operation of the demand and notices Annexures-4 and 6 were stayed, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall continue to pay current dues within the time prescribed. It may be further mentioned that at the time of admission, operation of the demand and notices Annexures-4 and 6 were stayed, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall continue to pay current dues within the time prescribed. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is directed that the respondent 4, till the aforementioned decision of the respondent 2, if not already decided, shall not enforce as against the petitioner, the demand as evidenced by Annexures-4 and 6. 5. With the aforementioned directions, the writ application is disposed of, but in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Order accordingly