ORDER 1. Having heard the learned Advocates of the respective parties, we are of the view that no useful purpose will be served in keeping the matter pending in view of the order which we propose to pass. 2. As will appear from the order of the learned single Judge dated 20th May, 2005 which has been impugned in the appeal, the appellant, M/s. Subernrekha Enterprises through its proprietor, Alok Khaitan, had filed the writ petition for a direction upon the respondents-Jharkhand State Electricity Board and its authorities to activate the new electrical connection of the petitioner which the Board has sanctioned and which the Board was withholding on the ground that there were certain outstanding dues payable by M/s. Bharat Agrico, a partnership firm which had been closed down in 1997 in which Alok Khaitan was also a partner. 3. According to petitioner, an Induction Furnace Unit has been set up which required electrical connection to the extent of 310 KVA. After deposit of a part of the security amount an agreement was executed on 1 lth December, 2004 but subsequently, the Board insisted that till such time dues of M/s. Bharat Agrico were not liquidated the new connection could not be given. 4. According to the Board a sum of Rs. 14,33, 102/- was due and payable by the said partnership firm, M/s. Bharat Agrico, in which Alok Khaitan was a partner and in respect whereof a certificate proceeding had been initiated before the Certificate Officer, Ranchi. 5. Upon considering the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, the learned single Judge was of the view that the unit of the writ petitioner should not be energized till the entire outstanding dues for which certificate proceeding had been initiated were deposited by the writ petitioner. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed. 6. In the instant appeal it has been submitted by Sri Mittal that the dues of the respondent-Board, as has been set out in the bill at page 32 of the memorandum of appeal discloses the break up of the total amount of Rs. 14,07,622/- said to be outstanding from M/s. Bharat Agrico. Referring to the said bill, Mr. Mittal pointed out that the Minimum Basic Charge for the years 1992-93, 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 amounting to about Rs. 10 lakhs had been included in the bill Mr. 14,07,622/- said to be outstanding from M/s. Bharat Agrico. Referring to the said bill, Mr. Mittal pointed out that the Minimum Basic Charge for the years 1992-93, 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 amounting to about Rs. 10 lakhs had been included in the bill Mr. Mittal submitted that as will appear from the adjudication of the appellants claim for remission under Clause 13 of the agreement for the year 1997-98, the entire amount claimed for the purpose of remission towards Basic Minimum Charge had been waived. According to Mr. Mittal on the same reasoning the claim for remission for the years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 was pending before the respondents and is yet to be disposed of Mr. Mittal submitted that the reason for such remission was basically interruption of supply of electricity and strike, which factors continued to prevail for the subsequent years as well. 7. It was submitted that there was reasonable expectation, on the part of the appellant/writ petitioner that such remission would also be allowed but that the matter had been allowed to remain pending for a long time. 8. Mr. Jerath who appeared for the respondents submitted that till such time as the amounts as claimed were paid by the appellant, the question of energizing the appellants unit did not arise particularly when the appellant had acknowledge his liability for the outstanding dues at least to the tune of Rs. 4 lakhs. 9. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and have also taken note of the fact that a large sum of money has been invested by the appellant in the extension of its plant and the entire exercise will be futile unless the plant is energized. In such circumstances, we dispose of the appeal by setting aside the order passed by the learned single judge and direct that subject to the appellant depositing with the Jharkhand State Electricity Board a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs, the said Board will within one week of such deposit energise the appellants plant. Apart from the above, the appellant shall also comply with all the required formalities, including the deposit of security charge. 6 lakhs, the said Board will within one week of such deposit energise the appellants plant. Apart from the above, the appellant shall also comply with all the required formalities, including the deposit of security charge. We also make it clear that since the respondents had earlier allowed the appellant instalments for payment of the security deposit, the appellant will be at liberty to apply afresh for such instalment and the respondents will be at liberty to consider the said prayer as they deem fit. 10. Within two weeks of restoration of supply, the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Ranchi Area, of the Jharkhand State Electricity Board, shall dispose of the appellants application for remission of the Minimum Basic Charges for the years 1998-99 and 1999-2000, after giving the representative of the appellant a reasonable opportunity of hearing and in accordance with law. In the event the application for remission filed by the appellant for the two aforesaid years are not available with the Board, the appellant shall make available copies of the same to the aforesaid authority within a week from date. Upon determination of the said application if any remission is to be allowed to the appellant, the claim as contained in Annexure-9 to the memorandum of appeal is to be modified accordingly. In any event, a fresh bill is to be raised on the appellant deducting the amount to be deposited by it in terms of this order. Upon presentation of such bill the appellant shall take steps to liquidate the same. 11. Needless to say while the aforesaid exercise is being undertaken the appellant shall go on paying the current bill as and when raised. 12. The appeal is accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs.