JUDGMENT : P. Venkatarama Reddi, J. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is preferred against the order of the High 3. Court giving certain directions in regard to the power connection of the appellant-Theatre and the payment of arrears in a Public Interest Litigation concerning the recovery of electricity dues against the defaulting consumers. It appears that by the date of disposal of PIL No.115/2000, a suit filed by the appellant was pending and the order now passed by the High Court sets at naught the proceedings pending in the other Courts and Tribunals. As per the impugned order of the High Court, the appellant was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 34,62,025/- and in default thereof the department was at liberty to disconnect the electricity connection. The said amount was apparently calculated on the basis of original contracted load. It appears that during the pendency of the special leave petition, an Amnesty Scheme was evolved by the State according to which certain concessions were given in regard to clearance of arrears. When the matter came up for hearing before this Court on 17.9.2004, the Court passed the following order: "Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is prepared to avail of the Amnesty Scheme and according to him he paid more than what is liable to be paid. It is contended that (i) the payments already made have not been taken into account in the communication dated 7.4.2004 issued by the Chief Engineer, Electrical Maintenance, Jammu and (ii) the surrender of additional load of 92 KW was made effective from 1.4.2001 whereas it should have been done from an anterior date. In regard to these aspects the necessary clarification will be furnished on the next date of hearing. Post after two weeks." 4. The respondents have not come forward with any definite stand as regards these two aspects though opportunity was given to them. As far as first issue is concerned, it admits of no doubt that payments factually made by the appellant have to be taken into accounts. The details of such payments are furnished in the Chart at page 75 of the Special leave petition paper book according to which the amount realised from the appellant between 1987 and 2002 would come to Rs. 9,37,807/-. However, in the communication dated 7.4.2004 the amount for which the credit given is shown as Rs. 3 lakhs. The details of such payments are furnished in the Chart at page 75 of the Special leave petition paper book according to which the amount realised from the appellant between 1987 and 2002 would come to Rs. 9,37,807/-. However, in the communication dated 7.4.2004 the amount for which the credit given is shown as Rs. 3 lakhs. Therefore, it appears prima facie that the credit has to be necessarily given for the remaining amount. Before doing so, it is open to the concerned authority to require the appellant to file proof of payment in regard to the payment of the amounts shown in the Chart. 5. The second issue is about the surrender of additional load. The appellant claims that he had surrendered the load to the extent of 92 KW on 22.8.1989. This fact is not in dispute. Our attention is however drawn to the circular issued by the Office of the chief Engineer, M&RE Wing, Jammu dated 24.10.2001 to the effect that " ...it is once again made clear that in surrender of power cases, the surrender will come into effect from the date machinery is removed and the concerned Asstt. Executive Engineer certifies the removal of machinery from the site, after the issuance of formal sanction of the surrender." 6. It is pointed out that the certificate of the Assistant Executive Engineer has not been secured by the appellant, as stipulated in the above circular. The office order dated 13.5.1993 passed by the Superintending Engineer would show that the sanction was accorded for the surrender of 92KW in favour of the appellant with effect from the date of removal of the machinery as recorded/certified by the concerned Engineer and the clearance of upto date arrears of electricity as per running load from time to time. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that even as per the circular dated 24.10.2001(supra), payment of arrears should not have been insisted upon as the load has already been surrendered and the equipment was also removed. It is submitted that the issuance of certificate by the Assistant Executive Engineer was only a formality which should have been complied with within a reasonable time. It is further submitted that there were no arrears apart from the differential amount attributable to the reduction of load. It is submitted that the issuance of certificate by the Assistant Executive Engineer was only a formality which should have been complied with within a reasonable time. It is further submitted that there were no arrears apart from the differential amount attributable to the reduction of load. However, both parties have not furnished any details as to the arrear position subsequent to the surrender of load and on the date of the order dated 13.5.1993. We are not inclined to embark on the investigation at this distance of time on the questions whether there were in fact any arrears if reduced load was taken into account and whether the pre-condition of payment of arrears could have been stipulated for issuing the certificate. We consider it just and proper to give a quietus to this controversy instead of leaving the issues to be agitated in the suit instituted by the appellant by reviving the said suit. Having regard to the fact that the additional load was indisputably surrendered in August, 1989 and having due regard to the factual controversies on the other aspects, we are of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the demand as per the original load is made only upto May 1993 i.e. the month in which the communication aforementioned was issued. The additional liability for this period shall be worked out and the demand notice shall be issued to the appellant. The amount so demanded shall be adjusted against the excess payment, if any, said to have been made by the appellant and any balance left should be paid by the appellant within four weeks from the date of service of demand notice, failing which action as per law could be taken against the appellant. 8. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.