Judgment :- M. Chockalingam, J. This appeal challenges the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.8515 of 2001 whereby the appellant/petitioner sought to quash the proceedings of the first respondent dated 14. 2001 under which the first respondent has confirmed the order of the Superintending Engineer, Electricity Distribution Circle, Coimbatore dated 26. 1997. 2. When the appeal waspending before this Court, it was brought of the notice of the Court that the appellant company was wound up. Under such circumstances, the Official Liquidator should be substituted in the place of appellant company. The Registry was directed to issue notice and accordingly notice was issued to the Official Liquidator that the Official Liquidator has become necessary party and hence necessary amendments have been made. 3. The Court heard the learned counsel for the Official Liquidator this day. The Court also heard the learned Standing counsel for the respondent Electricity Board. 4. The short facts with which the original writ petition was filed by the petitioner company was that it was a textile mill having High Tension connection No.290/99. On the basis that the petitioner committed theft of energy, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 21. 1997 by the Executive Engineer/O & M/Thudiyalur, asking him why extra levy should not be made to him. The writ petitioner submitted an explanation on 12. 1997. Since the said explanation was not found satisfactory, the Superintending Engineer, Coimbatore Electricity Distribution Circle(North), Coimbatore made an assessment of compensation at Rs.82,66,122/-applying the formula set out in clause 8.03 of the schedule I of the terms and conditions of supply. The petitioner filed W.P.No.12374 of 1998 challenging the said order of assessment and when the matter was taken up for enquiry, both the counsel made an endorsement to the effect that the appeal pending could be disposed of. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to dispose of the appeal on merits. Thereafter, the appeal came to be disposed of confirming the order of the Superintending Engineer. Under such circumstances, the writ appeal under challenge has been filed. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to dispose of the appeal on merits. Thereafter, the appeal came to be disposed of confirming the order of the Superintending Engineer. Under such circumstances, the writ appeal under challenge has been filed. 5. The only contention raised in the writ petition before the learned single judge was that the assessment order itself should have been set aside for the simple reason that there was a request made for examining the officials who made an inspection, but it was not actually allowed and the representations were also made on 12. 2001,3. 2001 and 33. 2001 to that effect. According to the petitioner, in spite of the request made by the petitioner, no such permission was granted. According to him, had the petitioner been permitted to examine the said officials, he would have made out a case that they have not committed any theft of energy. Hence, the order under challenge has got to be set aside. After hearing the learned counsel on either side, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition had pointed out that first of all, the amendment relied on by the petitioner side was only an enabling provision and it is not mandatory. Secondly the request for examining the officials who made inspection was not at all made before the assessing authority and no materials were available and having failed to do so, no request can be made before the appellate authority. Under such circumstances, the submissions made by the petitioners side cannot be countenanced and hence dismissed the writ petition. 6. The same contentions are reiterated before this Court in the above writ appeal. At this juncture, learned counsel for the Official Liquidator would submit that in so far as the claim made by the respondent Electricity Board, it has got to be made before the Official Liquidator because the writ petitioner company is now associated with the Official Liquidator and the claim has got to be scrutinised. In so far as the criminal liability is concerned, the erstwhile Directors are to be proceeded with and the Official Liquidator is not answerable to the same. 7. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Electricity Board on the above said contentions. 8. In so far as the criminal liability is concerned, the erstwhile Directors are to be proceeded with and the Official Liquidator is not answerable to the same. 7. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Electricity Board on the above said contentions. 8. After hearing both sides, this Court is of the opinion that no question of making claim by the Electricity Board to the Official Liquidator would arise because the official Liquidator is the appellant herein and the Court has actually dismissed the writ petition. Under such circumstances, now the claim made is the subject matter and has got to be taken into consideration by the Official Liquidator and necessary payment have got to be made by him specifying the claim by giving priority as one expected in law. In so far as the criminal liability is concerned, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Electricity Board has to proceed against the erstwhile Directors. 9. With that observation, the writ appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, WA.Mp.No.3269 of 2004 is closed.