JUDGMENT : B.P. Das, J. - This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 the Constitution of India has been filed by the Grid Corporation of Orissa, Ltd. (in short 'G'RIDCO'), a Government Company, impleading the Orissa Power Generation Corporation Ltd. (in short OPGC), in which the Govt, of Orissa has 51% share and AES Corporation of U.S.A. which is in the day-to-day management of OPGC, has 49% share, and the Central Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Ltd. (in short 'CESCO'). an existing company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956 and a licensee for supply of electricity to the consumers within the Central zone of Orissa, as opposite parties. 2. Challenge in this writ petition is made to the Fax letters dated 17.5.2001 and 18.5.2001 issued by the OPGC, vide Annexure 5 and 6 respectively, by which the OPGC decided not to' resume generation of electricity in one of its units, i.e. Unit 2 of IB Thermal Power Station (in short "ITPS'), and to stop supply of electricity to GRIOCO unless significant reduction in outstanding dues was made by the GRIOCO. 3. Before proceeding to examine the rival contentions of the parties, it is worthwhile to have a lock at the manner of functioning of the GRIOCO as well as OPGC and CESCO and the inter se relationship between the parties. 4. GRIDCO and OPGC are Government companies and are engaged in bulk supply the transmission of electricity, and generation and supply of electricity in the State of Orissa CESCO is the distribution and retail supply licensee of electricity for the central zone of Orissa. Both the opposite parties, i.e. OPGC and CESCO, are managed by AES Corporation of U.S.A. and AES Orissa Distribution (P) Ltd., a subsidiary of AES Corporation of U.S.A. respectively. An agreement called "Power Purchase Agreement" (shortly stated 'PPA') was executed between the GRIDCO and OPGC on 13.8.1996 wherein it was agreed that OPGC shall make available to GRIDCO the full quantum of electricity (energy) generated at the power generating stations of ITPS (Units 1 and 2) through the out-going 220 KV lines emanating from ITPS to evacuate and transmit the same through GRIDCO's own transmission system, subject' to the stipulations made in Clauses 2 and 3 of the PPA. In other words, the total available capacity of energy generated by Units 1 and 2 of ITPS will be fully allocated to the GRIDCO, which in its turn agreed to transmit and utilise the same through its own system as per Schedule I to the PPA, which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. It is also stipulated in the said PPA that OPGC shall not make available to a third party any part of the capacity, of ITPS or sell to a third party or consume for any purpose other than ITPS, any energy generated by ITPS during the term of the agreement except with the GRIDCO's prior written consent. After the GRIDCO entered into the PPA on 13.8.1996. (Annexure-1) on 18.10.1998 a Tripartite Agreement was executed between the Govt, of Orissa GRIDCO and OPGC, vide Annexure-2, in which the mode of payment was prescribed. On 30.11.1998 Escrow and Security Agreement was signed by and executed along GRIDCO, OPGC and Union Bank of India, vide Annexure-3, wherein it was agreed that the entire receivables and payments from the consumers and purchasers of electric capacity and or energy from CESCO are to be utilised for payment of the monthly invoices of GRIDCO in order to enable GRIDCO to duly pay and discharge the amount becoming due for power purchased by GRIDCO from OPGC. Clause 3.1 of the aforesaid Escrow and Security Agreement stipulated the detailed arrangement for the same. In terms of the Escrow and Security Agreement. Bulk Supply agreement was executed on 18.9.1999 between GRIDCO and CESCO, vide Annexure-4. From the facts narrated in the wit petition, it further reveals that the GRIDCO is the Bulk Supplier of electricity to four distribution companies, one' of such being CESCO, which in their turn being the licensees are to supply electricity to various consumers in the State of Orissa, and OPGC has to supply the entire capacity of its generation of power to GRIDCO. It is alleged that the Managing Director of OPGC by the Fax message dated 17.5.2001 (Annexure-5) intimated the GRIDCO that though Unit 2 of ITPS was 100% available on that day yet they not going to resume normal operation due to non-payment of electricity dues by GRIDCO in terms of the PPA and that the out-put of the ITPS would remain at a reduced load until further notice. By Anr. Fax message dated 18.5.2001. By Anr. Fax message dated 18.5.2001. (Annexure-6) the Deputy General Manager of ITPS intimated the Superintending Engineer, ?LDC, GRIDCO, that though Unit 2 of the ITPS was ready in all respect for light-up and synchronization, yet due to non-payment of the dues by the GRIDCO, they were not lighting-up the same. It is further alleged in the writ petition that OPGC had also reduced the generation of Unit 1 of ITPS on 18.5.2001 to the extent of 115 MW. On receipt of the aforesaid Fax communication, GRIDCO by its Fax message dated 18.5.2001 (Annexure-7) protested the action to ITPS and requested to light-up Unit-2 of ITPS and synchronize early to meet the requirement of the load of GRIDCO. The GRIDCO authority also by letter dated 18.5.2001 (Annexure-8) brought the aforesaid highhanded and illegal action of the Managing Director of OPGC to the notice of the Principal Secretary to the State Govt, in Energy Department and stated therein that the unilateral decision of the Managing Director of OPGC in shutting down one of the units of ITPS on the ground of non-payment of dues by GRIDCO was not correct. By Anr. letter dated 19.5.2001 (Annexure-9). GRIDCO intimated the Principal Secretary to the State Govt, in Energy Department that while shutting down of Unit 2 of ITPS was continuing, in the meantime Unit 1 and also been shut down by OPGC since 1 P.M. on 19.5.2001, which ultimately caused loss to the GRIDCO and had also dislocated the flow of Central Sector Power from Eastern Region to Western Region. That apart, in reply to the Fax message dated 17.5.2001 (Annexure-5), the Managing Director of GRIDCO by Fax message dated 19.5.2001 (Annexure-10), protested the action of the Managing Director of OPGC as the same violated the terms of the PPA and the Tripartite Agreement which did not authorise the OPGC to shut down the units of ITPS and stop power supply to GRIDCO. The special Secretary to the State Govt, in Energy Department by letter dated 19.5.2001 (Annexure-11) intimated the Managing Director of OPGC that the shutting down of both the units of ITPS had caused serious dislocation in the management and operation of the Grid and directed him to take immediate steps to bring back both the units into operation and report compliance. It is alleged by the Petitioner that despite such direction of the State Govt, the Managing Director of OPGC did not comply with the same which caused serious dislocation in the operation of the Grid. According to the Petitioner, the outstanding dues of the OPGC as on March, 2001 was around Rs. 142.00 crores. The collection of CESCO was escrowed to OPGC and it was found that during the financial year 2000-2001, CESCO's collection was about Rs. 439.00 crores against which Rs. 334.92 crores had been received by OPGC leaving a gap of Rs. 105.00 crores which was to be treated as payment to OPGC. According to the Petitioner, as on 31.3.2001, CESCO's default has been to the extent of Rs. 221.00 crores besides Rs. 174.00 crores which is payable by CESCO to GRIDCO in 12 equal monthly instalments commencing from 31.12.2002 along with interest as may be allowed by Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission (in short 'OERC'). Therefore the amount CESCO owes to GRIDCO far exceeds the dues of GRIDCO to OPGC. 5. It may be stated at this stage that the Petitioner's case is that CESCO and OPGC being subsidiaries of AES Corporation of U.S.A. are sister concerns. CESCO is defaulting to make payment to GRIDCO for which the GRIDCO is not able to pay its dues to OPGC. But OPGC stoutly refutes this allegation saying that CESCO is a different and separate company and OPGC has nothing to do if CESCO pay as to GRIDCO or not. 6. 'According to GRIDCO, it is crafty work of CESCO and OPGC to bring substantial loss to GRIDCO by coercing it to pay the dues of OPGC irrespective of the default in payment by CESCO because they knew that even if CESCO does not pay its dues to GRIDCO. GRIDCO being a fully owned Govt. Company having an obligation to the general public to supply electricity will not be in a position to disrupt the power thereby bringing a grinding halt to the industrial activities as well as the public utility services like hospitals, water supply organisations, etc. in the State and would be forced to take the burden and pay the demand made by the OPGC. It is further alleged that even though OPGC is managed by a private company having 49% share and the State Govt, having 51% share. in the State and would be forced to take the burden and pay the demand made by the OPGC. It is further alleged that even though OPGC is managed by a private company having 49% share and the State Govt, having 51% share. OPGC cannot act arbitrarily while dealing with public utility services because any malfunctioning or deviation in supply of power would ultimately lead to serious inconvenience to the general public. In other words, according to the Petitioner, OPGC cannot act arbitrarily against the interest of the general public and OPGC and CESCO being sister concerns of AES Corporation of U.S.A. cannot take the plea that OPGC is not liable in the matter of default in payment by CESCO to GRIDCO. 7. On the aforesaid premises, a prayer is made to quash the impugned communication in Annexure 5 and 6 and to declare the action of the OPGC as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and to direct OPGC to continue to supply power to GRIDCO from the units of ITPS as before. 8. OPGC has filed a preliminary counter affidavit through its Managing Director Mr. Edward Grayson Harvell wherein it is stated that as the generation had already commenced on or about 25.5.2001, no conceivable cause of action survives or exists for maintaining the writ petition, especially when Annexures 5 and 6 have been rendered ineffective. It is further restated that dispute inter se between the Petitioner and OPGC is fully covered by the arbitration clause contained in the PPA and would not be amenable to writ jurisdiction. According to OPGC, there has been a contumacious default on the part of the GRIDCO in making payments to OPGC relating to purchase of electricity in terms of the PPA and there is an arrear of more than Rs. 208 crores payable to OPGC by the GRIDCO, and the GRIDCO has violated the provisions of the PPA and has repeatedly failed to make payment to OPGC against the monthly bills raised by the OPGC. A statement detailing the dues payable by GRIDCO to OPGC has been annexed as Annexure-A/1 to the counter affidavit. It is further stated that continuous generation and supply without payment by the Petitioner in terms of the PPA would lead to economic disorder and collapse of OPGC. A statement detailing the dues payable by GRIDCO to OPGC has been annexed as Annexure-A/1 to the counter affidavit. It is further stated that continuous generation and supply without payment by the Petitioner in terms of the PPA would lead to economic disorder and collapse of OPGC. By virtue of the Tripartite Agreement and the Escrow Agreements, additional protection was given to OPGC in order to ensure that it receives regular payments from GRIDCO. Therefore, GRIDCO's contention that it relieved of paying OPGC since amounts are owed by CESCO to GRIDCO is not tenable. In the counter it is further stated that despite numerous reminders by the OPGC to GRIDCO, the latter has failed to fulfill its payment obligation under the PPA and other related agreements for which a reasonable business and commercial decision to reduce the plant load factor was taken by the OPGC. But pursuant to certain verbal assurance having been provided by GRIDCO to OPGC in respect of payment to OPGC and In compliance with the orders of this Court dated 30th of May, 2001 the units of ITPS have not been shut down. It is further contended that GRIDCO being accompany/body corporate has no fundamental rights and no statutory or other rights of GRIDCO has been infringed by the OPGC requiring interference by this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Further, the writ petition relates to disputes in the realm of concluded contracts inter se between the parties arising from the PPA, for which arbitration clause is provided and this writ petition, therefore, is not maintainable. 9. From the aforesaid facts, the questions that emerge for determination are as hereunder: (i) Whether this writ petition at the behest of the Petitioner-GRIDCO is maintainable? (ii) Whether in view of existence of an arbitration clause in the PPA executed between GRIDCO and OPGC, this Court can go into the dispute raised between the parties? 9. From the aforesaid facts, the questions that emerge for determination are as hereunder: (i) Whether this writ petition at the behest of the Petitioner-GRIDCO is maintainable? (ii) Whether in view of existence of an arbitration clause in the PPA executed between GRIDCO and OPGC, this Court can go into the dispute raised between the parties? If the answers to the above questions will be in affirmative, then the further questions that will require determination are: (iii) If CESCO stops payment of its dues to GRIDCO, whether GRIDCO can stop payment of its dues to OPGC since OPGC can shut down its units on the ground of non-payment of the dues by GRIDCO, thereby bringing a grinding halt to the industrial activities as well as the public utility services in the State by a stroke of pen? (iv) Whether any public duty can be attached to OPGC in the matter of generation and supply of electricity as electricity is the life-line of public in general, and industries in particular, when the industries and general public are making their payments towards supply of electricity to CESCO regularly? (v) Whether CESCO can be allowed not to pay the dues of GRIDCO although it collectors electricity dues from the general consumers, thereby bringing loss to the GRIDCO? 10. Q. No. (i) Whether this writ petition at the behest of the Petitioner-GRIDCO is maintainable? To answer this question, it is necessary to have a look at the basic constitution of OPGC and CESCO. It is an admitted fact that the State Government has 51% share and AES Corporation of U.S.A. has 49% share in OPGC. That apart, law is well settled that writ of mandamus can issue to any other person or authority performing public duty. Here is a case where the public duty attached to OPGC cannot be overlooked. The Apex Court, in Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and Others Vs. V.R. Rudani and Others dealing with the above question held as follows: 14. If the rights are purely of a private character no mandamus can issue. If the management of the College is purely a private body with no public duty mandamus will not lie. These are two exceptions to Mandamus. But once these are absent and when the party has no other equally convenient remedy, mandamus cannot be denied. If the rights are purely of a private character no mandamus can issue. If the management of the College is purely a private body with no public duty mandamus will not lie. These are two exceptions to Mandamus. But once these are absent and when the party has no other equally convenient remedy, mandamus cannot be denied. It has to be appreciated that the Appellants-trust was managing the affiliated college to which public money is paid as Government aid. Public money paid as Government aid plays a major role in the control, maintenance and working of educational Institutions. The aided institution like Government institutions discharge public function by way of imparting education to students. They are subject to the rules and regulations of the affiliating University. Their activities are closely supervised by the University authorities. Employment in such institutions, therefore, is not devoid of any public character. (See-The Evolving Indian Administrative Law by M.P. Jain (1983) P. 266). So are the service conditions of the academic staff. When the University takes a decision regarding their pay scales, it will be binding on the management. The service conditions of the academic staff are, therefore, not purely of a private character. It has super-added protection by University decisions creating a legal right duty relationship between the staff and the management. When there is existence of this relationship, mandamus cannot be refused to the aggrieved party. Keeping in view the above observations, since OPGC and CESCO both are discharging public function/service by way of generating, transmitting and supplying electricity to consumers and both OPGC and GRIDCO are public companies, this writ petition is maintainable. 11. Q. No. (ii) Whether in view of existence of an arbitration clause in the PPA executed between GRIDCO and OPGC, this Court can go into the dispute raised between the parties? In order to examine this question, it is necessary to look into the arbitration clause in Clause 12 of the PPA which is extracted hereunder: 12.0 Arbitration: Any difference or dispute between the parties in relation to any matter arising out of or in connection with this agreement, which cannot be resolved in accordance with provisions contained herein, shall be referred for arbitration as provided below, with due regard to the Law of Arbitration applicable to the dispute in the State of Orissa and the arbitrator(s) shall be persons of and hold proceedings in Orissa. 12.1 All disputes. Claims arising out of this agreement including interpretation thereof, shall be determined by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the law of arbitration, as applied in Orissa. Orissa High Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction for all legal proceedings. 12.2 xxx xxx xxx 12.3 xxx xxx xxx 12.4 xxx xxx xxx It is true that there exists an arbitration clause in the PPA. But here is a case where GRIDCO was forced to file this writ petition in the circumstances mentioned herein before. The threat of the Managing Director of OPGC to shut down its proper generating units and stop power production certainly has a far-feted consequences because with the industrial growth, electricity is a basic economic input upon with the growth, and development of the State depends. The nature of relief claimed on the present writ petition revolves around the question whether taking the plea of arbitration clause in the PPA executed between the parties, the OPGC can arbitrarily and unilaterally shut down its power generating units leaving the entire State starving for power, which may even lead to law and order situation in the State. In a situation like this, speedy and efficacious relief can only be available under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court considering the gravity of the situation issued a positive direction to the opposite parties not to shut down the power generating units without the leave of the Court. The relief sought for in the present case cannot be made available by resorting to arbitration clause contained in the PPA. That apart, OPGC is a public sector undertaking controlled by the State and is an agency and instrumentality of the State. OPGC is also governed by the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, Electricity (Supply) Act. 1948 and also by the Orissa Electricity Reforms Act, 1995. 12. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the prayer made in the writ petition, I am of the opinion that this Court can go into the dispute raised between the parties in the present writ petition, in the emergent situation as narrated above, even if there is an arbitration clause in the PPA executed between the GRIDCO and OPGC. 13. Since I have answered the first two questions in affirmative, I now proceed to deal with the other questions. 14. 13. Since I have answered the first two questions in affirmative, I now proceed to deal with the other questions. 14. Q. No. (iii) If CESCO stops payment of its dues to GRIDCO. whether GRIDCO can stop payment of its dues to OPGC since OPGC can shut down it units on the ground of non-payment of the dues by GRIDCO, thereby bringing a grinding halt to the industrial activities as well as the public utility services in the State by a stroke of pen? It is an admitted fact that Annexures 5 and 6, which are the FAX messages dated 17.5.2001 and 18.5.2001, were issued by Mr. Edward Grayson Harvell, the Managing Director of OPGC (O.P. No. 1) and the Deputy General Manager of ITPS respectively threatening not to resume power supply until significant reduction in the outstanding dues was made by the GRIDCO. It is also admitted that GRIDCO is the bulk supply and transmission licensee and has to purchase power from OPGC and other generating companies and sell the same to four distributing companies, namely, CESCO, WESCO, NESCO and SOUTHCO of Orissa Ltd., which in their turn being the retail supply licensees of electricity, are to supply electricity on retail basis to the consumers within the State. The tariff for bulk supply of electricity and retail supply is being fixed by the Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission from time to time u/s 26 of the Orissa Electricity Reforms Act, 1995. For the purpose of aforesaid transmission, an agreement called PPA was entered into between the GRIDCO and OPGC and it was agreed therein that OPGC shall make available to GRIDCO the full quantum of electricity generated at the power generating stations of ITPS (Units 1 and 2) through the out-going 220 KV lines emanating from ITPS to evacuate and transmit the same through GRIDCO's own transmission system. Clauses 1.0, 2.0 and 2.1 of the PPA, which are relevant for the present purpose, are extracted hereunder: 1.0. The installed capacity of IB Thermal Power Station (Units 1 & 2) will be 420 MW (2 x 210 MW.) The total available capacity will be fully allocated to the 'GRIDCO and the GR1DCO agrees to transmit and utilize the same through its own system as detailed in Schedule -I annexed hereto. The installed capacity of IB Thermal Power Station (Units 1 & 2) will be 420 MW (2 x 210 MW.) The total available capacity will be fully allocated to the 'GRIDCO and the GR1DCO agrees to transmit and utilize the same through its own system as detailed in Schedule -I annexed hereto. 2.0 OPGO shall not make available to a third party any part of the capacity of ITPS or sell to a third party or consume for any purpose other than ITPS, any energy generated by ITPS during the term of this Agreement except with the GRIDCO's prior written consent. 2.1. It is hereby declared and agreed that the GRIDCO shall receive and utilize power from lb Thermal Power Station without undue discrimination with the other sources. The sum and substance of the aforesaid clauses is that the total available capacity at the (sic) ITPS will be fully allocated to the GRIDCO : that OPGC shall not make available to a third party any part of the capacity of ITPS or sell to a third party or consume for any purpose other than, ITPS. any energy generated by ITPS, during the term of the Agreement except with the GRIDCO's prior written consent; and GRIDCO shall receive and utilize power from ITPS without undue discrimination with the other sources. Annexure-2 is a Tripartite Agreement executed on 18.10.1998 among the Govt, of Orissa, GRIDCO and OPGC in which the mode of payment was prescribed, and Clause 6 thereof stipulates as follows: 6. To further strengthen mechanism of payment, under the PPA by GRIDCO to OPGC, following arrangements, in addition to the provisions provided in the PPA, shall be instituted within three months of this agreement: (i) GRIDCO shall set up a escrow account mechanism to ensure timely payment of energy bills to OPGC. The mechanism shall provide that the proceeds from sale of power in predetermined distribution zones/inter state sale of power, so that the monthly amount collected from the above is 100% of OPGC's average monthly dues, is transferred to a separate bank account designated as the escrow account'. After payment of dues to OPGC any balance in the escrow account' will be transferred to the general account of GRIDCO. Billing cycles of OPGC and GRIDCO may be synchronised to minimise the period for which the funds are retained in the 'escrow account. After payment of dues to OPGC any balance in the escrow account' will be transferred to the general account of GRIDCO. Billing cycles of OPGC and GRIDCO may be synchronised to minimise the period for which the funds are retained in the 'escrow account. (ii) every month the State Government shall disburse an amount which remains unpaid by GRIDCO subject to a maximum of 25% of the monthly verified energy bills payable by GRIDCO to OPGC into the said 'escrow account' within a period of 15 days of raising of bills by OPGC. The amount so disbursed shall be treated as demand loan extended to GRIDCO by the State Government. The demand loan shall carry interest at the rate of 15% per annum. This would be an interim arrangement until completion of privatization of distribution and shall be reviewed by all the parties to this agreement after a period of 18 months form April 1, 1998. Accordingly, on the basis of the aforesaid clause of the Tripartite Agreement (Annexure-2), on 30th of November, 1998 an Escrow and Security Agreement was signed by and executed among GRIDCO, OPGC and Union Bank of India, vide Annexure-3, wherein it was agreed that the entire receivables and payments from the consumer and purchasers of electricity and/or energy from CESCO are to be utilized for payment of the monthly invoice of GRIDCO in order to enable GRIDCO to duly pay the amount becoming due for power purchased by GRIDCO from OPGC. Section 3.1 of the aforesaid Escrow and Security Agreement (Annexure-3) provides as Allows: Section 3.1. Deposits of Receivables, (a) GR'DCO agrees and confirms throughout the term of this Escrow Agreement it shall cause and direct CESCO to deposit into the GRIDCO Escrow Account amounts for the bulk supply of electricity by GRIDCO to CESCO for the distribution and retail supply in the area comprising of Bhubaneswar, Cuttack and Dhenkanal. If GRIDCO shall receive any such amounts directly, it hereby agrees that it will be holding such amounts in trust for the benefit of the Escrow Bank (as agent for OPGC) and shall immediately deliver such amounts in the exact form received (but with GRIDCO's endorsement, if necessary) to the Escrow Bank for deposit in the GRIDCO Escrow Account. If GRIDCO shall receive any such amounts directly, it hereby agrees that it will be holding such amounts in trust for the benefit of the Escrow Bank (as agent for OPGC) and shall immediately deliver such amounts in the exact form received (but with GRIDCO's endorsement, if necessary) to the Escrow Bank for deposit in the GRIDCO Escrow Account. (b) Any deposit made into the GRIDCO Escrow Account under this Escrow Agreement shall be irrevocable and all interest, income or gain earned or realised on amounts on deposit in the GRIDCO Escrow Account shall be retained therein and be treated for all purposes of this Escrow Agreement as part of the GRIDCO Escrow Account. (c) Under the terms of the independent Escrow agreement to be entered between GRIDCO and CESCO ("CESCO ESCROW Agreement) GRIDCO shall obligate CESCO that: (i) all receivables and payments from the consumers and purchasers of electric capacity and/or energy from CESCO are collected in designated collection accounts established and maintained by the Escrow Bank under the CESCO Escrow. Agreement; (ii) all the amounts collected are forthwith remitted to "CESCO Escrow Account" established and maintained by the Escrow Bank under the CESCO Escrow Agreement as per Appendix B: and (iii) on the GRIDCO pigment date under the power suppiy agreement with CESCO the Escrow Bank under the CESCO Escrow Agreement shall duly transfer and remit the amount the due from CESCO for the purchase of electric capacity and/or energy from GRIDCO from CESCO Escrow Account to GRIDCO Escrow Account maintained by the Escrow Bank in terms of this Escrow Agreement. (d) If GRIDCO shall receive directly from or on behalf of CESCO any amounts due for the electric capacity and/or electricity supplied by GRIDCO to CESCO for distribution and retail supply, GRIDCO hereby agrees that it will be holding such amounts in trust for the benefit of the Escrow" Bank and shall immediately deliver such amounts in entirely to the Escrow Bank for deposit in the GRIDCO Escrow Account. (e) GRIDCO agrees and confirms that concurrently with the execution and delivery of this Escrow Agreement CESCO shall irrevocably instruct and shall cause and direct each of the divisional officers In CESCO to transfer monies and funds received for electricity supplied by CESCO directly to the CESCO Escrow Account. (e) GRIDCO agrees and confirms that concurrently with the execution and delivery of this Escrow Agreement CESCO shall irrevocably instruct and shall cause and direct each of the divisional officers In CESCO to transfer monies and funds received for electricity supplied by CESCO directly to the CESCO Escrow Account. On the basis of the aforesaid stipulations of the Escrow and Security Agreement (Annexure-3), Bulk Supply Agreement was executed on 18.9.1999, between GRIDCO and CESCO, vide Annexure-4, under Clause 5.4 where of it is stipulated as follows: 5.4. The parties acknowledge and accept that there exists an escrow arrangement covering the receivables in the area of supply of CESCO as specified in the Escrow and Security Agreement dated 30 November. 1998 signed by and among GRIDCO, OPGC and Union Bank of India. In terms of the above, the entire receivables and payments from the consumers and purchasers of electric capacity and/or energy from CESCO are to be utilised for payment of the Monthly Invoice of GRIDCO in order to enable GRIDCO to duly pay and discharge the amount becoming due for power purchased by GRIDCO from OPGC, the escrow arrangement between CESCO and GRIDCO will continue as envisaged in the Escrow and Security Agreement dated 30 November. 1998 till CESCO and GRIDCO with the concurrence of OPGC and Union Bank of India mutually agree to amend the existing escrow arrangement to avoid deposit of entire receivables of CESCO. On 16.9.2000 a meeting was held among the Director (Finance). OPGC. Director' (Finance). GRIDCO, Executive Director (Finance). CESCO, and Chief Manager. Union Bank of India, and as per the minutes of the said meeting, vide Annexure-12. it was agreed upon that CESCO shall deposit its entire collection in the CESCO Escrow Account maintain at the Union Bank of India, Bhubaneswar. Main Branch, and the inflows into this account shall be transferred in full to GRIDCO-OPGC Escrow Account and utilised for payment of OPGC monthly bills in full. It is apparent from the aforesaid minutes that the deposit made by CESCO in its Escrow Account shall be transferred in full to GRIDCO-OPGC Escrow Account through GRIDCO. From this the natural presumption is that unless CESCO makes payment, there will be difficulty for GRIDCO to clear the dues of OPGC. Learned Counsel for the OPGC has advanced an argument that' CESCO being a separate company having a separate legal entity. From this the natural presumption is that unless CESCO makes payment, there will be difficulty for GRIDCO to clear the dues of OPGC. Learned Counsel for the OPGC has advanced an argument that' CESCO being a separate company having a separate legal entity. OPGC cannot force CESCO to make the payment and in case CESCO fails, that would not mean that OPGC will not get its dues from GRIDCO. In this regard learned Counsel for the OPGC draws my attention to a decision of this Court in-the case of Orissa Industries v. State of Orissa, (1983) 3 CLJ 14 (Ori), on the doctrine of lifting of corporate veil. Though this Court can lift the corporate veil in certain circumstances and take stock of situation, in the case at hand that situation has not come for which this Court is not inclined to go into the said question. At the same time, a bare reading of the agreements entered into between the parties, as narrated earlier, the natural conclusion would be that in order to make payment to OPGC. the deposit made by CESCO shall come to GRIDCO's Escrow account and the same shall then flow to OPGC account. From Annexure-13. which is the basis of OPGC bills and payment in respect of CESCO collection, it is quite clear that GRIDCO has made payments to OPGC much more than what it has received from CESCO. There is also nothing on record to indicate that CESCO has failed to collect its dues from its consumers for which it was not possible on its part of clear the dues it owes to GRIDCO. In the circumstances, the key question that falls for consideration is whether the action of OPGC threatening to stop generation of power by shutting down its of ITPS and to stop bulk supply of electricity to GRIDCO on the ground of non-payment of energy bills is sustainable. According to learned Counsel for the OPGC. OPGC is in no way concerned whether CESCO. which is a separate company altogether, makes payment regularly to GRIDCO or not: that for the power purchased by GRIDCO from the units of OPGC, the payments should be made without delay and accordingly the action taken by OPGC to ensure payment is legal and valid, and befitting the situation. because GRIDCO has miserably failed to pay its dues. According to OPGC. because GRIDCO has miserably failed to pay its dues. According to OPGC. the attempt of GRIDCO to link the amount it owes to OPGC with the amount which CESCO owes to GRIDCO, is patently misconceived and perverse and not sustainable, in law. 'It is. further argued that the arrangements made between the parties including the Tripartite Agreement vide Annexure-2 and the Escrow and Security Agreement were not meant to displace GRIDCO's primary obligation to pay the dues of OPGC. 15. In the preliminary counter affidavit file don behalf of CESCO. it is stated that the writ petition* is not maintainable against it because no relief is prayed for ' against CESCO, and Annexures 5 and 6, which are sought to be quashed, have been issued by OPGC. The aforesaid preliminary counter affidavit dies not dispute the stand of the GRIDCO that CESCO owes a huge sum of money to GRIDCO. In a very clever manner, CESCO has avoided to make any reply on the aforesaid aspect on the plea of non-maintainability of the writ petition as against it as no relief is sought for against it: As it appears. CESCO owes a huge amount of money to GRIDCO. From the record. I find, particularly from the affidavit filed by the Petitioner that the consortium of AES Corporation of U.S.A. and Jyoti Structures Ltd. were selected by the GRIDCO to acquire 51% of the equity shares in CESCO and accordingly the consortium of AES Corporation of U.S.A. chose to hold 51% of the equity in CESCO. through an investment vehicle (JVCo) in the name and style "AES' Orissa Distribution Private Limited" under the Companies Act, 1956. The investment made by AES Corporation. U.S.A. has got the approval of FIPB of the Govt, of India for investing in the equity share capital of AES Orissa Distribution Pvt. Ltd./CESCO. 16. According to the counsel for the Petitioner, by virtue of holding pattern AES Orissa Distribution Pvt. Ltd. is a subsidiary of AES Corporation and CESCO is a subsidiary of AES Orissa Distribution Pvt. Ltd. and the AES Corporation and OPGC by virtue of the share holder agreement executed between the State Govt, has 51% share and the AES Corporation has 49% share in OPGC. According to the Petitioner AES Corporation and OPGC are the same, and as AES. According to the Petitioner AES Corporation and OPGC are the same, and as AES. Corporation having share in CESCO, both the companies can be said to be held by AES Corporation. According to the Petitioner, OPGC can very well pressurisel CESCO to make payment of the dues to GRIDCO. But on the other hand, as it seems. AES Corporation while putting pressure on GRIDCO for payments of its dues, has done nothing in the matter of payment of Dues of the GRIDCO by CESCO. That apart, as I find from the counter affidavit, CESCO has avoided to make any reply oh the aforesaid aspect. 17. I have already stated earlier that it is not a case where the veil of incorporation should be lifted but at the same time from the agreement it is clear that CESCO shall make payment of its dues to GRIDCO and thereafter the money shall flow to OPGC. So it is the bounden duty of the CESCO to deposit its collection in its Escrow account which would ultimately flow to OPGC account; otherwise a situation will arise when GRIDCO would be forced to pay its dues to OPGC and CESCO shall go on collecting its dues from the consumers without making any payment of its dues to GRIDCO. and ultimately GRIDCO, which is a public undertaking, in order to discharge its obligation to general public, would be forced to Duy power from OPGC and supply the same to CESCO without getting its dues. The annexures sought to be quashed do not indicate any decisions taken by the Board of the OPGC but clearly indicate to be the decision of its Managing Director, which is unilateral. In a civilised society it is inconceivable that on the whims of single individual electricity which is the life-line of the modern society, shall be cut off and the entire State would be forced to go without electricity. That apart, from the arbitration clause contained in Clause 12 of the PPA (Annexure-1), at Clause 12.3, it is also clear that notwithstanding existence of any dispute or difference referred to arbitration, the parties hereto shall continue performance of their respective obligations under this agreement with due diligence. That apart, from the arbitration clause contained in Clause 12 of the PPA (Annexure-1), at Clause 12.3, it is also clear that notwithstanding existence of any dispute or difference referred to arbitration, the parties hereto shall continue performance of their respective obligations under this agreement with due diligence. The impugned Fax messages in Annexures 5 and 6 are arbitrary and the action grossly arbitrary and the action threatened to be taken is not only high-handed but also grossly arbitrary, which cannot withstand the judicial scrutiny of this Court. Accordingly, the impugned Fax message in Annexures 5 and 6 are set aside. 18. Q. Nos. (iv) Whether any public duty can be attached to OPGC in the matter of generation and supply of electricity as electricity is the lifeline of public in general, arid industries in particular, when the industries and general public are making their payments powers supply the electricity to CESCO regularly? And (v) Whether CESCO can be allowed no to pay the dues of GRIDCO although it collects electricity dues from the general consumers, thereby bringing loss to the GRIDCO? I may add here that the business of an electrical supply undertaking is a public utility service and controlled by the statutory provisions, should not be left to the hands of a single individual, who can on his own whims and caprices bring the industrial activities as well as other public utility services in the State to a grinding halt. The action taken by the Managing Director of OPGC in Annexures 5 and 6 cannot be construed to be the decision of the OPGC and. therefore, the said action is illegal. That apart CESCO also cannot be allowed to enjoy the sale proceeds of the power without making payment to GRIDCO, which is the bulk supplier and purchasing electricity from OPGC. From the tenor of the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the OPGC and CESCO, it transpires that each of them is supporting the case of the other On one hand. OPGC and CESCO claim that they are two separate companies have nothing to do with the other, on the other CESCO has come forward with the plea that the writ petition is not maintainable against it as no relief is ought for against it even though there is an allegation that CESCO has failed to pay its dues towards supply of electricity to GRIDCO. The procedures adopted in the agreement should be strictly followed and some other effective and practical mechanism should be evolved to see that not only CESCO but also the other Distribution Companies make their payment to GRIDCO in time. In the written notes of argument submitted by OPGC, it has been stated that some disputes have been referred to an Arbitrator in the meantime and. therefore this Court ought not to exercise-its writ jurisdiction. Be that as it may it is not a dispute only touching the interest of both the parties. 19. Considering the reliefs sought in the present writ petition and in the facts and circumstances in which a Government Company has filed this writ petition involving interest of general public and closely linked with public utility services. I hold that the writ petition is maintainable. 20. Accordingly, the impugned Fax messages in Annexures 5 and 6 are quashed and the writ petition is allowed. No cost.