Judgment :- 1. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner Hotel, seeking to forbear the respondents either demanding or collecting monthly minimum charges from the date of the alleged "first supply availability notice dated 29.04.2005" till the date of actual supply of energy viz., 30.06.2007 pertaining to the petitioner's premises bearing New No.30 (Old NO.161) situated at Anna Salai, Little Mount, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015. 2. The writ petition was admitted on 18.07.2007. Pending the writ petition, an interim injunction was granted on the ground that in respect of same subject W.P.No.6309 of 2006 was already pending and this Court had granted interim stay as well as interim direction. The main writ petition was directed to be posted along with W.P.No.6309 of 2006. 3. W.P.No.6309 of 2006 was filed challenging an order dated 25.01.2007 passed by the third respondent Superintending Engineer, CEDC/South in cancelling the HT Power Supply application dated 06.06.1998. In that writ petition, an interim direction was granted to proceed with the completion of balance works and effect HT power supply as per the earlier sanction order dated 30.01.1999 and an interim stay was also granted on 21.02.1007. 4. It now transpires that having obtained an interim stay and direction, the petitioner withdrew the writ petition viz., W.P.No.6309 of 2006 on 13.07.2011. It is a clear high-handedness on the part of the petitioner that having obtained an interim direction and achieving the final object in the petition for interim direction itself and without any final adjudication withdrawing the writ petition, thereby disabling the Court from adjudicating on the merits of the original writ petition. In any event, after several adjournments, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit dated 12.04.2012 and an additional counter affidavit dated 28.06.2012. 5. It is the stand of the third respondent that the respondent sent a Supply availability notice dated 29.04.2005 stating that laying of cable up to the petitioner's premises was completed and the petitioner has to avail the supply within three months from the date of notice after providing RMG at his own cost as agreed to by the petitioner. The RMG has to be fabricated by the petitioner at his own cost. RMG was installed as soon as it was provided by the writ petitioner during the second week of February 2007 and supply was energized immediately. The RMG has to be fabricated by the petitioner at his own cost. RMG was installed as soon as it was provided by the writ petitioner during the second week of February 2007 and supply was energized immediately. The cable laid up to the petitioner's premises cannot be energized immediately after its laying but can be energized only after connecting the same to the RMG. The Chief Electrical Inspector to Government (CEIG) by his letter dated 12.01.2007 had stated that the RMG were not erected and only HT cable laid. The CEIG instead of sending letter to the petitioner had erroneously addressed the same to the third respondent. It was further stated that even though the agreement was entered into on 15.04.2005, the laying of cable from the supply point up to the petitioner's premises was completed within 14 days and supply availability notice was issued on 29.04.2005 duly informing the petitioner to obtain and produce the safety certificate from the CEIG within the stipulated three months time. The petitioner did not produce either the safety certificate or RMG for its erection within the three months time. Since the petitioner did not produce the RMG fabricated by him as per specification within three months from the date of supply availability notice and he has produced the RMG during the second week of February 2007 and Safety Certificate from the CEIG on 17.01.2007 after a delay of 21 months from the date of issue of supply availability notice, the petitioner is bound to pay the monthly minimum charges. 6. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit dated 20.04.2012. It is stated that the actual supply was made on 30.06.2007 and the meter itself was purchased on 30.06.2007 and the Hotel was running on Generator Power. If the respondents had made available the power supply, there was no necessity for the petitioner to run the hotel from January 2007 to June 2007 with Generator Power. Supply can be made available only after installing the Transformers (RMG), after installing metering points and meters and laying the cables first to the RMG and from there to metering points and then connecting to meters. It is only after the said exercise is completed, supply can be allowed to pass through the underground cables. Therefore, the demand made by the respondents is not justified. 7. It is only after the said exercise is completed, supply can be allowed to pass through the underground cables. Therefore, the demand made by the respondents is not justified. 7. However, a perusal of the record clearly shows that the supply availability notice was issued as early as 29.04.2005. As per the agreement, the petitioner has not executed his part of the obligation and he cannot now feign ignorance about the obligation under the agreement. The respondents having fulfilling the obligation and also issued supply availability notice, it is for the petitioner to comply with the same. The writ petition is clearly misconceived. 8. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.