ORDER By the Court.- The instant writ petition is preferred at the instance of the petitioner for issuance of a..'1 appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to issue "No Objection Certificate" (for short "NOC") in the name of the petitioner. 2. The submission is that it e aforesaid NOC is required since the petitioner has opted for another licensee. Namely JUSCO for grant of fresh electrical connection in its factory premises. Prayer is also for a direction on the respondents to remove all its electrical equipments from the factory premises and to enable the petitioner to fulfill the modalities and installation of the transmission line in the factory premises. 3. The petitioner manufactures Aluminum extruded sections and he required High Tension Electrical Connection. The respondent-Jharkhand State Electricity Board provided electricity connection vide Consumer No. HJ/AP-50 for a contract demand of 734 KVA. Voltage at 11 KV under the Category HTS-1. An agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the Jharkhand State Electricity Board (for short "the Board") for a period of three years. However. subsequently. there arose certain disputes between the petitioner and the respondents. A bill was raised against the petitioner Company on the issues of AMG Bills. Delayed Payment Surcharge and Fuel Surcharge to the tune of crores of rupees which was challenged by the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 171 of 2005. The reliefs claimed in the said writ petition are quoted in paragraph-7 of this writ petition which reads as under : "For quashing the bill for the month of November. 2004 so far it relates to the arrears which is for a sum of Rs. 2.68.34.080/- since it constitutes : (i) Delayed Payment Surcharge on AMG Bill for 1985-86 which was for a sum of Rs. 3.18.861.53 minus Rs. 2.75.000/-= Rs. 43.000/- on which the Board has levied Delayed Payment Surcharge to the extent of Rs. 1.93.63.305/- till date. (ii) Delayed Payment Surcharge on the amount of Rs. 20.000/- paid by the petitioner in September. 1989 (but not credited by the respondents) on which the Board is continuing to levy Delayed Payment Surcharge to the extent of Rs. 6.69.632/-. (iii) Fuel Surcharge differential amount of 40 Paise per unit stayed by this Hon'ble Court and also the Delayed Payment Surcharge thereupon totaling Rs.40.30.000/-. (iv) Fuel Surcharge amount paid by the petitioner for the period July, 1993 to November. 6.69.632/-. (iii) Fuel Surcharge differential amount of 40 Paise per unit stayed by this Hon'ble Court and also the Delayed Payment Surcharge thereupon totaling Rs.40.30.000/-. (iv) Fuel Surcharge amount paid by the petitioner for the period July, 1993 to November. 1995 for a sum of Rs, 6.65.0p /- out of which the petitioner had made. payment of 50% earlier and the balance amount was paid. subsequently but the same has not been credited and Delayed Payment Surcharge along with the same is Rs. 27,67,063/-. For direction upon the Board to keep the disputed amount of Fuel Surcharge under the heading 'Kept in Abeyance' and no Delayed Payment Surcharge should be charged. Not to disconnect the electrical connection of the petitioner." 4. All these amounts are challenged in the writ petition i.e. W. P. (C) No. 171 of 2005. The petition was heard and this Court passed an interim order directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 5.00.000/- within a week and a further direction was issued to the Board not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner. This order was .passed on 13.01.2005. This Court directed deposit of Rs. 5.00.000/- only as against the bill of rupees three crores and odd for the reasons that the actual amount which was payable by the petitioner was only Rs. 43.000/-. So far the amount of Rs. 20.000/- remained with the respondents Board and they had failed to credit the same in the account of the Board. Thus Delayed Payment Surcharge and• Fuel surcharge is levied by the respondent escalating in huge escalation of the total amount. 5. It is submitted by Mr. Mittal that the respondents Board continued to levy the surcharge and finally on account of non-payment of the current charges, the electrical line of the petitioner was disconnected on 7th March. 2006 as against the final bill of Rs.3.14.18.445/-. 6. The petitioner desires to switch over another licensee. namely. JUSCO for which a "No Objection Certificate" from the respondents Board is essential but the same is not issued. hence this writ petition. 7. Learned counsel has brought to my notice the order passed by the Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission. Ranchi (for short "the Regulatory Commission") dated 20th July. 2007 regarding the Methodology on "switching of consumers from one distribution licensee• to other in the same area". hence this writ petition. 7. Learned counsel has brought to my notice the order passed by the Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission. Ranchi (for short "the Regulatory Commission") dated 20th July. 2007 regarding the Methodology on "switching of consumers from one distribution licensee• to other in the same area". Paragraph 1 of the said order passed by the Regulatory Commission states that the existing consumers have to get their service disconnected in accordance With provision in para 7.5 of the Electricity Supply Code Regulation. 2005 of the Regulatory Commission. In the event disputed bills are pending before the competent forum or in the Court of law the existing consumers and the second licensee will give the undertaking for' the amount under dispute or bank guarantee for that amount. Once the conditions are fulfilled and the existing licensee fails to issue NOC then after 15 days from that date. it will be' treated that NOC has been issued. This order of the Regulatory Commission is Annexure 5. The Board challenged the aforesaid order of the Commission before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity vide Appeal No.122 of 2007 by the Jharkhand State Electricity Board. The appeal was dismissed with only change that the deeming provision regarding issuance of NOC within 15 days. the appellate Tribunal made it to 30 days. Mr. Mittal has also brought to my notice the two orders passed by this Court wherein direction was granted to the Board for issuing NOC. Order dated 12.11.2009 in W.P. (C) No. 4885 of. 2009. M/s Ramkrishna Forging Limited v. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and others and the other order dated 25th January. 2010 in W.P. (C) No. 36 of 2010. M/s. Kross Manufacturers In Private Limited v. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and others. In both these orders the direction was to issue NOC on or before the date fixed. The order in W.P. (C) No. 36 of 2010 was made final and the writ petition was disposed of in terms of the interim order passed on 23rd March. 2010. The final order in the case of M/s. Kross Manufacturers (supra) has been placed before the Court which is kept on the record. 8. Learned counsel also asserts that since. in W.P. (C) No. 4885 of 2009. the Court had required the petitioner to file an undertaking to safeguard the interest of the respondents Board. 2010. The final order in the case of M/s. Kross Manufacturers (supra) has been placed before the Court which is kept on the record. 8. Learned counsel also asserts that since. in W.P. (C) No. 4885 of 2009. the Court had required the petitioner to file an undertaking to safeguard the interest of the respondents Board. In the instant writ petition another Bench of this Court directed the petitioner to file an undertaking and furnish it before the Registrar General of this Court. For compliance of the aforesaid direction. supplementary affidavit was preferred on behalf of Nimai Chand Agrawal one of the Directors of the Company. along with deed of absolute conveyance in respect of Plot No. 333. khata No. 14 of Village Getiatu. Thana No. 166. P.S. and District Ranchi. Subsequently another affidavit of Dilip Kumar Goel. Managing Director of the Company was also filed in the form of an undertaking pursuant to a direction by the Court' dated 27.7.2011. 9. Mr. V.P. Singh. learned senior counsel appearing for the Board has disputed the argument made on behalf of the petitioner. A preliminary objection was raised that since there is no statutory provision under the Act or Rule or Regulation to grant NOC. Therefore, no writ is maintainable for issuance of mandamus to the respondents. Regulation 7.5 as quoted in paragraph 7 in the writ petition is also completely silent regarding issuance of NOC. It is further stated that electricity connection has finally been severed on 7th March. 2006; therefore. since there is no electricity connection, there is no necessity for grant of NOC. It is argued next that on the basis of an interim order enclosed with the writ petition on behalf of the petitioner emphatic objection is that this interim order do not decide any ratio and. Therefore, has no binding effect and only at the interim stage. this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. So far the security in the shape of document of the landed property along with the affidavit of the one of the Directors and the Managing Director of the petitioner Company. learned counsel expressed his doubt regarding validity and authenticity of the said documents which is filed along with the affidavit without any resolution of the Company and also that the original deed is not filed along with an affidavit. learned counsel expressed his doubt regarding validity and authenticity of the said documents which is filed along with the affidavit without any resolution of the Company and also that the original deed is not filed along with an affidavit. Thus the security on the face of it is an absolute sham. There ought to be a resolution under Section 290 of the Companies Act to make it binding on the petitioner. Lastly counsel appearing for the Board pointed out that two interim orders relied upon by the petitioner is a specific order on the facts of a particular case and cannot be accepted to equally apply to the facts of the present case. 10. I have given a careful consideration to the arguments of the respective counsel the basis of the arguments of the respondents' counsel and on going through the record of the instant writ petition, evidently grant of a NOC is not provided in any Statute or Regulation, but the Regulatory Commission constituted under the Electricity Act, 2003 consisting of three members has taken into consideration the question of issuance/non-issuance of a NOC. The order dated 20th July, 2007 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) has taken into consideration the provision of para 7.5 of the Electricity Supply Code Regulation 2005 of the Regulatory Commission but that reiates to switch over to another licensee in the event there "is no disputed bill. The question of any dispute regarding issuance of a NOC will not arise in such circumstances, but para 2 of the said order deals with certain cases relating to disputed bills which are sub-judiced and the order also speaks of switching over to another licensee if the existing consumer so desires and the rival contention between the existing licensee and its consumer desiring to switch over was the question that came up before the Regulatory Commission. The order expressly states that a NOC if not issued within 15 days after filing of an undertaking of the disputed amount. it will be deemed that NOC has been issued. The Board itself challenged this order in appeal which was rejected. however, the period bf l5 days was increased to 30 days. Thus, in my view, the Board cannot completely write off that there is nothing like "a NOC" since there is no such statutory provision. it will be deemed that NOC has been issued. The Board itself challenged this order in appeal which was rejected. however, the period bf l5 days was increased to 30 days. Thus, in my view, the Board cannot completely write off that there is nothing like "a NOC" since there is no such statutory provision. In practice whenever consumer switches over from one licensee to another the subsequent licensee requires certain security for its due amount which is sub-judice. Thus I am not in agreement with the argument of Mr. V.P. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Board that no writ or direction can be issued for grant of a NOC. 11. So far the question of interim order not deciding any ratio or having binding effect is concerned, evidently W.P. (C) No.36 of 2010 was finally disposed of in terms of the same interim order. However. accepting the argument that the order was passed on the facts and in the circumstances of a particular case, I proceed to decide the fads of the instant case as well. The prayer of the previous-writ petition W.P. (C) No. 171 of 2005 quoted in paragraph 7 of this writ petition is not disputed by the respondents in their counter-affidavit. Paragraph 11 of the counter-affidavit is a consolidated reply to the statements made in paragraphs 3 to 7, 10 to 12, 14 to 19 and 26 to 29 of the writ petition. Thus the prayer is admitted in the present petition. I had also specifically questioned to Mr. M.S. Mittal, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, regarding the dues to the tune of Rupees Three Crores and odd and during course of his argument, while giving rejoinder to the argument of Mr. V.P. Singh, it was brought to my notice that the amount is exorbitantly escalated on account of levy on Delayed Payment Surcharge and the same having been levied on part of such amount which continued to be in deposit with the Board, but for some reason, the same could not be credited in its account. This argument is not disputed and, therefore, Rs. This argument is not disputed and, therefore, Rs. 5,00,000/- which has been deposited pursuant to an interim order by this Court continues to be in deposit with the Board besides the undertaking filed by one of the Directors and the Managing Director along with the document pertaining to landed property before the Registrar General of this Court is sufficient undertaking and security. However, the objection that the original document has not been deposited cannot be overruled. In view of the circumstances. in my opinion. the petitioner shall submit the original document, if not deposited till date of the property furnished as 'security' along with an affidavit of Dilip Kumar Goel and thereafter the respondents Board shall issue NOC within 30 days without insisting for further payment. Also remove all its equipments to enable the petitioner to get a fresh electricity connection. 12. This writ petition is, accordingly. disposed of with the aforesaid directions. The parties shall make 'compliance forthwith within the prescribed period. Petition disposed of.