ORDER The Court 1. Heard. 2. These two appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. W.P.(C) No. 5032 of 2001 was filed by the appellant Govind Prasad Kanaudia and W.P.(C) No. 5825 of 2001 was filed by the appellant Kashinath Kanaudia. The certificate officer in the order dated 18th August, 1999 passed by him had held both of them "dendaar" and thus liable to pay the amount in question. In course of the said order, the certificate officer even though mentioned two persons as "Dendaar" and they being Govind Prasad Kanaudia and Kashinath Kanaudia, but he does not either return any finding or decide as to which one of these two dendaars (we shall hereinafter refer this term as "Debtor") is actually liable to pay the amount in question. In fact, a reading of the order dated 18th August, 1999 may perhaps be suggestive of the fact that perhaps the certificate officer thought and held that both the debtors were jointly and severally liable to pay the amount in question. For the reasons that we state hereinafter, nothing could be further from truth because only one of the two debtors can be held liable to pay, and not both of them. 4. Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned Counsel for the appellant in LPA No. 51 of 2002 submits that his client Govind Prasad Kanaudia is not at all liable to pay, because Dhanbad Flour Mills, which, undoubtedly, at one point of time, was under the possession and occupation of his client (the property undoubtedly also belongs to his client) was leased out/ rented out to Kashinath Kanaudia, appellant in LPA No. 61 of 2002 and that based on this lease/licence/agreement between the parties. Mr. A.K. Sinha, the learned Counsel further says his client ceased to have any liability in so far as paying any money towards the electrical consumption charges or any other electricity dues was concerned. 5. Mr. P.K. Sinha, learned Counsel for the appellant (In LPA No. 61 of 2002) on the other hand, submits that his client is not liable to pay the electricity dues because Dhanbad Flour Mills belongs to Govind Prasad Kanaudia, appellant in LPA No. 51 of 2002 and that notwithstanding the agreement executed between the parties on 21.4.1976, the liability to pay electricity charges remained with Govind Prasad Kanaudia. 6. 6. Writ petition WP (C) No. 5825 of 2001 was filed by Kashinath Kanaudia- appellant suggesting that he is not liable to pay. Writ petition WP (C) No. 5032 of 2001 was filed by Govind Prasad Kanaudia-appellant, relying upon communication No. 2422 dated 6.6.2001 from the Electrical Superintending Engineer. Dhanbad Electrical Supply Area. Dhanbad. 7. In the foregoing paragraphs we have extracted some of the relevant facts. We have also mentioned about some of the relevant documents. 8. The learned Counsel for the parties in both these cases, including Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned Counsel for the appellant in LPA No. 51 of 2002 and Mr. P.K. Sinha, learned Counsel for the appellant in LPA No. 61 of 2002 have consented to and agreed upon an agreement whereby the inter se disputes between their two clients with regard to their alleged liability to pay electricity charges/dues can be adjudicated upon and resolved by an independent person. Both the them have suggested that for achieving this, we should make a reference to Smt. Shakuntala Sinha. Legal Advisor to the Jharkhand State Electricity Board with direction to her to Act as a single member arbitral tribunal and by conducting arbitration proceedings, to pass an award and to determine as to which one of these two persons is liable to pay the electricity charges/dues to the Electricity Board. 9. Based on the aforesaid agreement between the parties, we dispose of these appeals, set aside the Judgment of the learned Single Judge and refer the aforesaid disputes between the aforesaid two persons-appellant in these two appeals-to the arbitration of Smt. Shakuntala Sinha, Legal Advisor to the Jharkhand State Electricity Board. The sole arbitrator shall enter upon the reference immediately. First of all, appellant Govind Prasad Kanaudia (in LPA No. 51 of 2002) shall submit to her his statement of claims/disclaimer/counter affidavit within two weeks from today with an advance copy to Mr. P.K. Sinhas client. Within two weeks thereafter. Mr. P.K. Sinhas client shall submit his claim/ disclaimer/counter affidavit which also may be a reply to the statement of Govind Prasad Kanaudia. Govind Prasad Kanaudia within a week of the receipt of the statement of Mr. P.K. Sinhas client may submit his rejoinder thereto. The parties shall not be allowed to file any further pleadings, nor any further time shall be given to either of them for this purpose. Govind Prasad Kanaudia within a week of the receipt of the statement of Mr. P.K. Sinhas client may submit his rejoinder thereto. The parties shall not be allowed to file any further pleadings, nor any further time shall be given to either of them for this purpose. With their pleadings, the parties may file the documents upon which they seek reliance or which they might like to refer. 10. After the pleadings Are thus completed, the sole Arbitrator shall start arbitration proceedings on week-to-week basis. In this case, there is no question of any party being allowed any oral evidence. On completion of arbitration proceedings, the sole Arbitrator shall pass her award on the merits of the case and in accordance with law. Endeavour shall be made to pass the award within one month from the date of completion of the pleadings. 11. Then sole Arbitrator shall not be influenced by the judgment of the learned Single Judge under challenge in these two Appeals in so far as any other judgment of this Court or any other orders passed by any other forum or documents/instruments etc. are concerned, the sole Arbitrator may take them into account, refer to them or even rely upon them, subject to their applicability, but in the light of the observations made hereinabove. If the sole Arbitrator feels or thinks that any particular judgment, order or document/instrument has lost its relevance because of any other judgment/order, it shall be up to her to determine its relevance/applicability and consequently rely upon the same or not rely upon the same. 12. Mr. Rajesh Shankar, learned Counsel for the Jharkhand State Electricity Board at this Stage submits that while conducting the arbitration proceedings and determining the extent of the liabilities by either of the aforesaid two persons, the sole Arbitrator may also be directed by us to take into account, while determining the liability of one of these two persons, ultimately found due to pay the electricity charges, also to pay interest thereon, if warranted and permissible under law, or Rules or Regulations. Considering such request of Mr. Rajesh Shankar, we direct the sole Arbitrator to take this factor also into account while conducting the arbitration proceedings and ultimately passing her award. Till the Arbitrator passes her award, no coercive step shall be taken against either of the appellants with respect to the recovery of the dues/charges. Considering such request of Mr. Rajesh Shankar, we direct the sole Arbitrator to take this factor also into account while conducting the arbitration proceedings and ultimately passing her award. Till the Arbitrator passes her award, no coercive step shall be taken against either of the appellants with respect to the recovery of the dues/charges. However, once the award is passed, the Electricity Board shall be at its absolute liberty to reckon the amount of liability and take all steps for effecting recoveries of the amounts in question in accordance with the award against the person found due and liable to pay. The appeals are disposed of. But no orders as to costs.