A. K. GOHIL, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india for quashing the demand notice dated 9-6-1993 (Annexure-"g") and the impugned order dated 23-6-1993 (Annexure- "1") and claiming the relief of concession in electricity dues and charges amount to Rs. 5. 95 lacs outstanding against the petitioner as on date on the ground of rehabilitation scheme under BIFR with a further relief against disconnection of the power supply to the petitioner. ( 2 ) IN reply the respondent denied the claim of the petitioner and submitted that power supply has not been disconnected and the petitioner is not entitled for any such relief of supply of electricity on concessional charges and in support of his contentions learned counsel cited decision in the case of India maize and Chemicals Ltd. v. State Of U. P. and ors. , and in the case of Deputy Commercial tax Officer and Ors. v. Corromandal Pharmaceuticals and Ors. , and in the case of hyderabad Vanaspathi Ltd. v. A. P. State electricity Board and Ors. , and his submission was that embargo under Section 22 (1) of the m. P. Sick Industrial Companies (Special provisions) Act, 1985 is only applicable on the legal proceedings and only those dues reckoned or included in the sanctioned schemes. The cases where the Company committed default in payment of amount of electricity charges, the provisions of Section 22 (1) would not be applicable. ( 3 ) THE petitioner could not satisfy me whether there is any decree to this effect against M. P. E. B. and whether any order has been passed for supply of electrical energy by ordering payment of concessional rates after hearing the respondent Electricity Board and whether the matter of concessional electricitiy charges is included under the rehabilitation scheme, therefore, it is not correct to say that since the proceedings are pending before BIFR electricity is required to be supplied to the petitioner on concessional rates or the petitioner is entitled for any relief as has been sought in this petition. Learned Counsel for the respondent/state also submitted that the petitioner company was declared as a relief undertaking (Sahayata Upkram) for a limited period of one year with further extentions which has also come to an end and even as a relief undertaking petitioner is not entitled for electricity on concessional charges. Learned Counsel for the respondent/state also submitted that the petitioner company was declared as a relief undertaking (Sahayata Upkram) for a limited period of one year with further extentions which has also come to an end and even as a relief undertaking petitioner is not entitled for electricity on concessional charges. No other points were urged before me. ( 4 ) IN view of the above, the petitioner could not make out a case for grant of any relief or for any interference by this Court in this petition. Accordingly this petition has no merits and is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .