Order The petitioner, Pyrities, Phosphates & Chemicals Limited is a Government of India Undertaking. It comes with this writ petition seeking this court's intervention to prevail upon the Bihar State Electricity Board to grant it deferment in the payment of monthly bills for the current energy charges. 2. This extraordinary prayer is made in the following circumstances. According to the petitioner, it is passing through acute financial crisis. Its monthly bill for current energy charges on an average amounts to Rs.70 lacs. It was given bills for the months of February and March, 1999 amounting to Rs.1.47 crores (approx). It has already defaulted in making payment of the bills for the months of February and March, 1999. It will also receive, in due course, bills for the subsequent months and it is the case of the petitioner that for the moment it is not in a position to make payment of those bills. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that it has in store fertilizers worth Rs.63 crores and it expects that the sale of fertilizers would commence with the commencement of the rainy season and by the middle of June it would have all the money to make payment of the arrears of the current energy charges to the Board along with the delayed payment surcharge and interest, if any, according to the Board's tariff. It therefore, wants a respite from making payment of the monthly bills till the middle of June, 1999 and seeks a direction to the Board to maintain the supply of electricity to the petitioner and not to disconnect its line for non-payment of the current energy charges. It is stated that the disconnection of the line would have a far reaching and devastating consequence and besides affecting the manufacture of fertilizers would also render jobless a large number of workers. 3. It is quite obvious that this court could not give such a direction and a working arrangement could perhaps be arrived at only with the consent of the Board. But unfortunately, the Board has its own tale of woe to narrate before this court. Mr. 3. It is quite obvious that this court could not give such a direction and a working arrangement could perhaps be arrived at only with the consent of the Board. But unfortunately, the Board has its own tale of woe to narrate before this court. Mr. Mihir Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing for the Board eloquently submitted that the Board too has to make regular payments to the National Thermal Power Corporation and the C.I.L. among others and the Board is also faced with the constant threat of stoppage of supply of energy from the N.T.P.C. in case of any default in payment to the latter. In case the Board was restrained from realising the current energy charges from the petitioner, its payments to the N.T.P.C. may fall in jeopardy and if the N.T.P.C. stopped supply of energy to the Board, it would not be the petitioner alone but the entire State (or in any event a large part of it) that may have to go without electricity. Mr. Jha, therefore very regretfully expressed the Board's inability to agree to defer the payment of the current energy charges by the petitioner till June, 1999. 4. It must however, be noted that according to Mr. Jha even at this stage the Board was willing to accommodate the petitioner as far as its own survival was not threatened and Mr. Jha assured the court that the officials of the Board will try their utmost to bailout the petitioner from its present difficulty. 5. At this stage, Mr. L.K. Bajla submitted that the petitioner's claim for remission of the annual minimum guarantee charges and the maximum demand charges for the years, 1988-89 to 1996-97 remained pending before the General Manager now for the past several years. According to Mr. Bajla, the claims for remission amounted to Rs.2.29 crores (approx.) and in case a final order was passed on those claims, the petitioner would be entitled to a refund of the aforesaid amount from the Board and in that event it may not be liable to make any payment of the current energy charges till May, 1999 which would not exceed Rs.2.29 crores. 6. Mr. Bajla further stated that the General Manager had, in fact, accepted the petitioner's claims but he did not pass the final order and put his seal on it, as a very large sum of money was involved. 6. Mr. Bajla further stated that the General Manager had, in fact, accepted the petitioner's claims but he did not pass the final order and put his seal on it, as a very large sum of money was involved. Before passing the final order he sought instructions from the Board. 7. In that regard, Mr. Jha stated that the stand of the Board was that the General Manager in terms of clause 13 of the H.T. Agreement performed a quasi-judicial function and he did not require any instructions from the Board and the concerned General Manager was perfectly free to pass an order on the petitioner's claims for remission in terms of clause 13 and in accordance with law. 8. Mr. Jha, however, strongly objected to the claims of remission being advanced as a plea for deferment of payment of the current energy charges. According to him the claims for remission were one thing and the payment for the current energy charges was some thing entirely different. He further tried to meet the petitioner's plea based on the claims of remission by stating that the Board had also a claim of Rs.2.53 crores (approx.) against the petitioner which was presently kept in abeyance and the details of which were shown in the bill dated 1.4.1999. 9. Having heard counsel for the parties, I am of the view that although there has been truly an inordinate delay in determining the petitioner's claims of remission of maximum demand charges and annual minimum guarantee charges, Mr. Jha is quite correct in his submission that the claims of remission cannot be used as an excuse for not making payment of the current energy charges and the payment of the current energy charges cannot be made dependent upon the determination of the petitioner's claims of remission. Therefore, while directing the General Manager, Central Area Electricity Board to dispose of the petitioner's claim of remission for the aforesaid years without any further delay and preferably within two months from today, I refrain from making any direction concerning the payment of the current energy charges by the petitioner. 10. Therefore, while directing the General Manager, Central Area Electricity Board to dispose of the petitioner's claim of remission for the aforesaid years without any further delay and preferably within two months from today, I refrain from making any direction concerning the payment of the current energy charges by the petitioner. 10. This court would have felt much happier if some working arrangement could have been arrived at between the parties before this court, but while closing the records of this case this court does not give up the hope that the petitioner and the Board will be able to arrive at a mutually acceptable arrangement which may not lead either to the closing down of the petitioner's plant or put the Board in a serious financial jeopardy. 11. This writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. The interim order earlier passed stands vacated.