JUDGMENT : S.K. Mishra, J. - In this writ petition, petitioner no.1, namely M/s. Balasore Alloys Limited (hereinafter referred to as the "petitioner-company"), has prayed to quash the disconnection notice issued by the Executive Engineer, Central Electrical Division, Balasore, opposite party no.2, on 16.12.2011. 2. The petitioner-company pleads that a disconnection notice under Section 56(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the "the Act" for brevity) read with Regulation 100 of the Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code" for brevity) was issued demanding a sum of Rs. 1,65,51,26,499/- as outstanding dues as on 16.12.2011. The petitioner-company pleads that in the year 2004, the petitioner-company and opposite party no.1, North Eastern Electricity Supply Company of Odisha Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the NESCO" for brevity), mutually decided to settle the old outstanding dues by way of one time settlement. After series of negotiations and discussions, it was agreed that the arrear dues payable by the petitioner-company to the NESCO would be Rs. 3885.98 lacs as on 31.12.2004. The petitioner-company was required to deposit the said amount in twenty monthly instalments. It was further agreed that the petitioner-company shall deposit an amount of Rs. 480 lacs towards additional security deposit in nine monthly instalments. The aforesaid decisions were recorded in the minutes of discussion dated 31.1.2005 and signed by the authorized officers of the parties. It is further pleaded by the petitioner-company that in accordance with the aforesaid minutes of discussion, it started making payment of the first ten monthly instalments as per the schedule indicated in the minutes of discussion. However, in view of the recession in the international market, the petitioner-company could not pay the balance ten instalments and requested the NESCO to defer payment of the balance amount for a period of twelve months. While matter stood thus, the petitioner-company on 20.11.2006 and 30.11.2006 paid two further instalments which were duly received by the NESCO. In the meantime the petitioner company deposited the entire additional security amount of Rs. 480 lacs in accordance with the schedule set out in the minutes of discussion dated 31.1.2005. While matter stood thus, the petitioner-company on 20.11.2006 and 30.11.2006 paid two further instalments which were duly received by the NESCO. In the meantime the petitioner company deposited the entire additional security amount of Rs. 480 lacs in accordance with the schedule set out in the minutes of discussion dated 31.1.2005. The petitioner-company after having paid twelve monthly instalments requested the NESCO to re-schedule the repayment dates and the balance dues and on consideration of the same, on 31.8.2007 the Chief Executive Officer, NESCO, opposite party no.3, extended the due dates for payment of the balance eight instalments subject to the condition that the petitioner-company opens a letter of credit in a scheduled/nationalized bank at Balasore for an amount of Rs. 16 crores which would cover the balance eight months instalments payable. It is, therefore, pleaded by the petitioner company that the decision taken by opposite party no.3 on 31.8.2007 in effect superseded and/or modified the dates of payment of instalments set out in the minutes of discussion dated 31.1.2005. Pursuant to the letter dated 31.8.2007 of opposite party no.3, on 4.9.2007, 5.10.2007, 6.11.2007, 7.12.2007, 7.1.2008, 13.2.2008, 14.3.2008 and 17.4.2008 the petitioner company paid the balance outstanding dues of Rs. 16 crores in eight instalments through letter of credit. It paid the aforesaid balance outstanding dues of Rs. 16 crores to NESCO in addition to the monthly energy bills. After payment of the first instalment of Rs. 2 crores as per the terms and conditions of the letter dated 31.8.2007 of opposite party no.3, the arrear was reduced to the tune of Rs. 80 crores approximately by NESCO in the energy bills w.e.f. the month of August, 2007. Hence the NESCO accepted the terms and conditions of minutes of discussions between the NESCO and the petitioner-company dated 31.1.2005 by way of revising the energy bill. While the matter stood thus, all on a sudden on 1.11.2010, the NESCO issued the energy bill to the petitioner-company for the month of October, 2010 indicating Rs. 160,10,82,840/- as the amount due within rebate, wherein it is alleged, the NESCO illegally and arbitrarily added a sum of Rs. 148,21,98,339.28 as the arrear amount, even though the dispute was settled and the entire settled outstanding amount paid by the petitioner-company. On 16.12.2010, opposite party no.2 issued a disconnection notice directing the petitioner-company to pay a sum of Rs. 160,10,82,840/- as the amount due within rebate, wherein it is alleged, the NESCO illegally and arbitrarily added a sum of Rs. 148,21,98,339.28 as the arrear amount, even though the dispute was settled and the entire settled outstanding amount paid by the petitioner-company. On 16.12.2010, opposite party no.2 issued a disconnection notice directing the petitioner-company to pay a sum of Rs. 159,79,30,200.00 as the outstanding dues up to November 2010. The said disconnection notice was challenged by the petitioner company before this Court vide W.P.(C) No.120 of 2011 which was disposed of on 5.1.2011 giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Grievance Redressal Forum (for short "the GRF") and protected the petitioner-company from disconnection for a period of four weeks. 3. It is the case of the petitioner-company that after such disposal one meeting was held between the NESCO and the petitioner company to settle the dispute, wherein it was decided not to file any application before the GRF. While the matter stood thus, on 25.5.2011, opposite party no.3 wrote a letter to the petitioner-company stating, inter alia, that the arrear amount of Rs. 25.22 crores as on January, 2011 (Rs.28.22 crores - Rs. 3 crores) is ensured for payment through LC in instalments to be determined and approved by Board of Director. On 16.12.2011, the NESCO without appreciating such facts issued the impugned disconnection notice to the petitioner-company to pay a sum of Rs. 165,51,26,499/- as the outstanding dues as on 16.12.2011. The petitioner-company submits that as per the minutes of discussion singed between the NESCO and the petitioner company dated 31.1.2005 and the letter dated 31.8.2007 of opposite party no.3, the petitioner-company had paid all the settled outstanding dues and there is no outstanding dues of the NESCO on it. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned disconnection notice dated 16.12.2011 issued by opposite party no.2 be declared as illegal, arbitrary, bad in law and liable to be quashed. 4. In course of hearing, it also transpires that the plant of the petitioner-company at Balgopalpur was set up in the year 1984. Since inception it was receiving power from Odisha State Electricity Board. Latter on it was supplied with electricity by GRIDCO and now electricity is being supplied by the NESCO. 4. In course of hearing, it also transpires that the plant of the petitioner-company at Balgopalpur was set up in the year 1984. Since inception it was receiving power from Odisha State Electricity Board. Latter on it was supplied with electricity by GRIDCO and now electricity is being supplied by the NESCO. An agreement was entered into on 31.1.1991 for supply of 28,000 KVAS of uninterrupted power on terms and conditions as stipulated in the said agreement and now the petitioner-company is availing 44,000 KVA of power from the NESCO. Learned counsel for the petitioner-company, in course of hearing, placed much reliance on the fact that a sum of Rs. 80,77,19,560.07 has been shown to be provisionally withheld by the NESCO in their energy bill dated 01.11.2010 and on several occasions. It is argued that by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 56 of the Act since this amount has not been continuously shown to be outstanding and recoverable from the petitioner-company, the NESCO debarred from issuing a disconnection notice against the petitioner company claiming such amount as arrear. 5. The NESCO has filed a counter affidavit, inter alia, pleading that the writ petition is based on misconceived and disputed questions of facts and laws, so it is not possible to adjudicate it in the writ jurisdiction. The petitioner-company has by-passed the alternative forum available under Section 42(5) of the Act i.e. the GRF and thereafter the OMBUDSMAN. The opposite parties plead that a sum of Rs. 108.25 crores approximately had accumulated in the energy bill of the petitioner-company during December 2004 due to non-payment/late payment of energy dues. The petitioner-company approached the NESCO to resolve a number of issues like retrospective effect of enhancement of their contract demand, relaxation of due dates of payment as per supplementary agreement, billing on the basis of recorded demand, waival of overdrawal penalty, extension of limitation period to avail committed load factor above 90% etc. The petitioner-company and the NESCO in a minutes of discussion held on 31.1.2005 decided that by putting the joint signatures of authorized officials of both the parties to the meeting to reduce the outstanding dues of the petitioner-company from Rs. 108.25 crores to Rs. The petitioner-company and the NESCO in a minutes of discussion held on 31.1.2005 decided that by putting the joint signatures of authorized officials of both the parties to the meeting to reduce the outstanding dues of the petitioner-company from Rs. 108.25 crores to Rs. 40.35 crores (sacrificing its differential revenue of normal RST and concessional tariff) as on 31.12.2004 with a condition that the petitioner-company will pay the reduced amount in twenty monthly instalments starting from 1/2005 to 8/2006 along with other consequences for failure in payment of instalments in time. The petitioner-company agreed to pay the subsequent instalments commencing from April, 2005 by the due date as mentioned in the re-payment schedule at Clause-7(i) of the minutes. It was further stipulated that in case the petitioner-company default to pay by the due date, it shall be liable to pay interest @ 11% per annum for the period of default. The petitioner-company shall pay to the opposite parties the defaulted monthly instalment along with interest by the due date of next monthly instalment. In case of default by the petitioner-company in paying monthly instalments of outstanding including interest dues consecutively for two months then the petitioner company will be liable to pay interest @ 14% for the entire default period. 6. It was further agreed that in case the petitioner-company commits six defaults in making payment of interest along with the instalments during the tenure of the re-payment schedule as mentioned at 7(i) above then the scheme of settlement as agreed between the parties shall also stand cancelled and the petitioner-company shall be liable to pay the amount as per Annexure-II (Rs.108.25 crores) enclosed as reduced by the amount actually paid towards instalments under the settlement. Default for the above purpose mean non-payment of monthly instalment by due date as mentioned in the clause including interest due, if any. The petitioner-company regularly defaulted in payment of instalments as agreed upon after making payment of three instalments in time and subsequently become defaulter in payment of interest along with instalments from 9/2005, which attracts cancellation of the scheme of settlement agreed upon on 31.1.2005. The petitioner-company vide its letter No.3402 dated 9.1.2006 approached the NESCO for re-scheduling of balance arrear payments (as mutually agreed in minutes of discussion on 31.1.2005) in lower amount of instalments starting from 11/2006 to 2/2009. The petitioner-company vide its letter No.3402 dated 9.1.2006 approached the NESCO for re-scheduling of balance arrear payments (as mutually agreed in minutes of discussion on 31.1.2005) in lower amount of instalments starting from 11/2006 to 2/2009. In reply to the above proposal of the petitioner-company, the NESCO vide its letter No.2833 dated 2.3.2006, refused to allow the rescheduling of payment of arrears and intimated the petitioner-company that they have to pay the arrear of Rs. 108.25 crores as they have defaulted the payment schedule as per minutes of discussion held on 31.1.2005. Again the petitioner company vide its letter No.5570 dated 28.7.2006, requested the NESCO to revise its outstanding amount of Rs. 121.19 crores existed in the bill as they have paid Rs. 19.00 crores out of the agreed outstanding arrear of Rs. 38.85 crores. Similar request has been made by the petitioner-company again vide its letter No.5959 dated 28.8.2006 to the NESCO. The arrear of Rs. 108.25 crores as on 31.12.2004 was continued to exist in the bill of the petitioner company and subsequent monthly energy bills, payments against subsequent monthly bills along with arrear payments instalments were accounted for taking arrear of Rs. 108.25 crores on 31.12.2004. As a result, arrears outstanding along with delay payment surcharge had accumulated to Rs. 121.19 crores upto 7/2006 in the bill of the petitioner-company. 7. After a series of discussions and communications, the NESCO authorities decided to exhibit separately the proposed withdrawal amount along with accumulated DPS amounting to Rs. 80.77 crores in the bill, which was supposed to be shown separately from 1/2005, to avoid further accumulation of DPS. In the meantime, the petitioner-company vide its letter No.3473 dated 29.8.2007 approached the NESCO representing that they are willing to pay balance arrear outstanding of Rs. 15.40 crores in eight monthly instalments of Rs. 2.00 crores in shape of post-dated cheques and request the NESCO to revise the bills on the basis of minutes of discussion held on 31.1.2005. NESCO in reply to the above request intimated the petitioner-company vide their letter No.17325 dated 31.8.2007 that the petitioner-company may pay a sum of Rs. 16.00 crores out of the outstanding amount in eight equal monthly instalments starting from 9/2007 through letter of credit and all the bank charges for such payment is to be borne by the petitioner-company and refused to accept post dated cheques. 16.00 crores out of the outstanding amount in eight equal monthly instalments starting from 9/2007 through letter of credit and all the bank charges for such payment is to be borne by the petitioner-company and refused to accept post dated cheques. The opposite parties further plead that such above communication was no way to be treated as superseding and/or modifying the minutes of discussion held on 31.1.2005 by the petitioner-company as the said minutes of discussion was a joint decision taken by both the parties and subsequently approved by the Board of Directors of NESCO in their 42nd Board Meeting held on 28.5.2005 and it is clearly spelt in the letter No.1325 dated 31.8.2007 of NESCO that the petitioner-company may pay a sum of Rs. 16.00 crores out of the outstanding amount. 8. The payment of Rs. 16.00 crores in eight monthly instalments made by the petitioner-company has been adjusted duly in their bill against the outstanding arrears. The total outstanding arrears were never reduced as Rs. 80.77 crores had existed in the bill of the petitioner-company separately and continuously under the head "PW Account" i.e. provisionally withheld account to avoid further accumulation of DPS. Further due to default in payment of instalments of arrear in accordance with the minutes of discussion held between both the parties on 31.1.2005, there was no scope to revise the bills accordingly and the same was already intimated to the petitioner-company vide NESCO Letter No.2833 dated 2.3.2006. The opposite parties further claimed that the petitioner-company being the defaulter in payment of settled arrear amount according to the terms and conditions of the minutes of discussion held on 31.1.2005, NESCO recalculated the amount of arrear to be paid by the petitioner-company considering the accumulated DPS on reduced balance method and exhibit arrears in the bill for the month of October, 2010 at Rs. 148.22 crores. Therefore, it is pleaded that no illegal and arbitrary act have been made by the NESCO as the petitioner-company has defaulted the schedule of instalments for payment of arrears as well as arrear security deposit amount, which they agreed to pay by putting joint signature in the minutes of discussion held on 31.1.2005 in respect of the settlement or disputes. 9. 9. Another notice was issued on 16.12.2010 against which the petitioner-company had filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.120/2011 which was disposed of on 5.1.2011 with a direction to the approach the GRF. The petitioner-company without approaching the GRF, approached the NESCO for an out of court settlement on 7.1.2011. In a subsequent meeting between the petitioner-company and the NESCO held on 10.1.2011, it was again discussed to come under a one time solution to the repeated disputes put forth by the petitioner-company, but no factual decision was arrived at in the said meeting. 10. After several discussions on the issue the NESCO vide their letter No.540 dated 28.3.2011 intimated the petitioner-company that they may pay Rs. 107.9929 crores subject to the condition that this amount is to be paid by the petitioner-company by 31st March, 2011. Further it was also intimated in the said letter that since the petitioner company has paid the current bill for the month of January, 2011 besides Rs. 3.00 crores on 25.3.2011 the payment amount of Rs. 14.0444 crores shall be adjusted and the amount payable by the petitioner-company upto March, 2011 shall be Rs. 93.9485 crores in order to enable it to avail the reduced amount failing which the petitioner-company is liable to pay Rs. 161.68 crores minus Rs. 14.0444 crores. 11. Subsequently, the petitioner-company vide its Letter No.1508 dated 23.5.2011 represented to NESCO to settle the old outstanding issues once for all and to freeze the settlement amount of Rs. 28.22 crores. In other words, the petitioner-company is reluctant to pay the DPS amount of Rs. 85.3673 crores and requested to allow them to pay Rs. 25.22 crores in twelve monthly instalments as they have already paid Rs. 3.00 crores on 28.3.2011 out of Rs. 28.22 crores. In reply to the above mentioned representation, the NESCO vide their Letter No.871 dated 25.5.2011 intimated the petitioner-company that pending decision of the Board of Director, to ensure the payment of Rs. 25.22 crores through letter of credit to avoid disconnection of power supply and the decision of final settlement of old arrears is pending before the Board of NESCO. At no point of time the NESCO authorities intimated to the petitioner company regarding final settlement of arrears except the minutes of settlement signed between both the parties on 31.1.2005. 25.22 crores through letter of credit to avoid disconnection of power supply and the decision of final settlement of old arrears is pending before the Board of NESCO. At no point of time the NESCO authorities intimated to the petitioner company regarding final settlement of arrears except the minutes of settlement signed between both the parties on 31.1.2005. The different plea and allegation made by the petitioner company in respect to the settlement of old arrears from time to time is baseless, bad in law, arbitrary and have no merit. The arrear outstanding shown in the bill of the petitioner-company continuously is fair and liable to be paid by the petitioner-company as it has never paid the settled outstanding dues in accordance with the minutes of meeting signed by them on 31.1.2005. On such plea, the opposite parties claimed that the disconnection notice served by them on 16.12.2011 to pay a sum of Rs. 165.51 crores is sustainable in the eye of law and also issued in accordance with the prevailing Electricity Act, Rules, and Regulations framed by Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission. 12. In course of hearing, it was also contended by the petitioner-company that the provision of Sub-Section 2 of Section 56 of the Act will not be applicable to the amount provisionally withheld as it has shown as 'continuously recoverable from them in the successive bills'. Moreover, it is further contended by Mr. Sanjit Mohanty, learned Sr. Counsel, that the provision of Sub-Section 2 of Section 56 of the Act shall not be applicable in this case as the amount due to the opposite parties relates back to the pre-Act situation i.e. prior to 2003 as there has been a continuous default on the part of the petitioner company. 13. On these pleadings and arguments advanced, the questions that would arise for adjudication by this Court are as follows:- i. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in view of the fact that there exists an alternative remedy for the petitioner-company as envisaged under Section 42(5) of the Act ? ii. Whether the settlement dated 31.1.2005 was acted upon or cancelled ? In other words, whether the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties on 31.1.2005 were cancelled due to default on the part of the petitioner-company ? iii. ii. Whether the settlement dated 31.1.2005 was acted upon or cancelled ? In other words, whether the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties on 31.1.2005 were cancelled due to default on the part of the petitioner-company ? iii. What is the purport and consequence of letter issued by the petitioner-company on 05.03.2011, Annexure-E admitting the claim of the NESCO to be Rs. 107 crores only ? iv. Whether the disconnection notice issued by opposite party no.2 is hit by the limitation prescribed under Sub-Section 2 of Section 56 of the Act ? 14. Whether the licensee i.e. NESCO is amenable to writ jurisdiction ? In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the reported case of Zee Telefilms Ltd. and another v. Union of India and others, (2005) 4 SCC 649 . The view taken by the Supreme Court in that case is that the public duties may be more important than they are often thought or perceived to be. Such public duties may arise by reason of (i) prerogative, (ii) franchise, and (iii) charter. All the duties in each of the categories are regarded as relevant in several cases. Then the Supreme Court examined whether a body or institution discharging public function is amenable to judicial review under Article 32 and 226 of the Constitution. At paragraph 156, the Supreme Court held that having regard to the modern conditions when the Government is entering into business like the private sector and also undertaking public utility services, many of its actions may be State action even if some of them may be non-governmental in the strict sense of the general rule. Although the rule is that a writ cannot be issued against a private body but thereto the following exceptions have been introduced by judicial gloss: (a) Where the institution is governed by a statute which imposes legal duties upon it. (b) Where the institution is "State" within the meaning of Article 12. (c) Where even though the institution is not "state" within the purview of Article 12, it performs some public function, whether statutory or otherwise. It is not disputed in this case that the State of Odisha is a stake holder in NESCO with 51% of its shares are held by the Reliance Industries. The rest of the shares are either owned by the State Government or its instrumentalities or financing companies. It is not disputed in this case that the State of Odisha is a stake holder in NESCO with 51% of its shares are held by the Reliance Industries. The rest of the shares are either owned by the State Government or its instrumentalities or financing companies. The opposite party i.e. NESCO is discharging the function of distribution of electricity, which is guided by the Electricity Act, 2003 as well as by the Regulations issued by the Orissa Electricity Regulation Commission. Previously, the duty of the generation of electricity and its distribution was entrusted to a Board, which was controlled by the State Government. But due to reforms in the Energy Sector, generation, transmission and distribution have been divided into different categories and different Companies have taken over the functions of generation, transmission and distribution. The electricity reforms also has inducted private players in the matters of distribution of electricity to the consumers. Thus, the NESCO is discharging a public function, which is controlled by a statute and the Regulation framed thereunder and therefore it is amenable to writ jurisdiction. The question arises whether a writ petition is maintainable in view of the fact that there is an alternative remedy available to the present petitioner Section 42 (5) of the Act, which provides for an appellate forum. In this case, it is the Grievance Redressal Forum (GRF, for short). The grievance redressal forum has jurisdiction to decide matters arising out of the disputes relating to bill of energy. This case essentially involves complaint regarding energy bill and, therefore, the G.R.F. established by the Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission (Grievance Redressal Forum and Ombudsman Regulations, 2004 is quite applicable to the case in hand and the petitioner should ordinarily approach the G.R.F. Existence of an alternative forum does not necessarily, in all cases exclude, the jurisdiction of the writ court. The reluctance on the part of the Judges to take up a case, in which an alternative remedy exists, is an internal discipline imposed upon themselves by the courts. However, such rule has exceptions. 15. The Supreme Court in Harbanslal Sahnia and another v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and others; AIR 2003 Supreme Court 2120 has held that the rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of alternative remedy is rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. However, such rule has exceptions. 15. The Supreme Court in Harbanslal Sahnia and another v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and others; AIR 2003 Supreme Court 2120 has held that the rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of alternative remedy is rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. In an appropriate case in spite of availability of alternative remedy the High Court may still exercise its writ jurisdiction in at least three contingencies; (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights; (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice or, (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. 16. Similar view has been taken in U.P. State Spining Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey & another; 101(2006) CLT 160 (SC), wherein the Supreme Court held that not exercising the power in case of availability of alternative remedy is a rule of self-imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion and never a rule of law. Despite the existence of an alternative remedy it is within the jurisdiction or discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. At the same time, it cannot be lost sight of that though the matter relating to an alternative remedy has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the case, normally the High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy. If somebody approaches the High Court without availing the alternative remedy provided, the High Court should ensure that he has made out a strong case of that there exist good grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction. 17. The Supreme Court, in an unreported case of Nivedita Sharma v. Cellular Operators Assn. of India and others; Civil Appeal No.10706 of 2011, has examined the question of maintainability of a writ petition before the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in spite of existence of a statutory remedy of appeal available to the parties under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Supreme Court held as follows:- "We have considered the respective arguments/submissions. The Supreme Court held as follows:- "We have considered the respective arguments/submissions. There cannot be any dispute that the power of the High Courts to issue directions, orders or writs including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, certiorari, mandamus, quo warranto and prohibition under Article 226 of the Constitution is a basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be curtailed by parliamentary legislation - L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261 . However, it is one thing to say that in exercise of the power vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court can entertain a writ petition against any order passed by or action taken by the State and/or its agency/instrumentality or any public authority or order passed by a quasi-judicial body/authority, and it is an altogether different thing to say that each and every petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution must be entertained by the High Court as a matter of course ignoring the fact that the aggrieved person has an effective alternative remedy. Rather, it is settled law that when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation." Thus, the Supreme Court further held that the existence of alternative remedy is not a bar to entertain a writ petition filed for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights or where there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice or where the order under challenge is wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of the statute is under challenge. Holding thus, the Supreme Court has set aside the order passed by the Delhi High Court. 18. In Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others; AIR 1999 Supreme Court 22, it has been laid down that the jurisdiction of the High Court in entertaining a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in spite of the alternative statutory remedies, is not affected, specially in a case where the authority against whom the writ is filed is shown to have had no jurisdiction or had purported to usurp jurisdiction without any legal foundation. Thus, the Supreme Court has held that the High Court was not justified in dismissing the Writ Petition at the initial stage without examining the contention that the show cause notice issued to the appellant was wholly without jurisdiction The Supreme Court has further held that in view of pendency of these proceedings in the High Court and specially in view of Section 107 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, the Registrar could not legally issue any suo motu notice to the appellant under section 56(4) of the Act for cancellation of the Certificate of Registration/Renewal already granted. In view of Section 56(4), the Registrar has not jurisdiction to issue such a notice. 19. It is apparent from the aforesaid discussion that the High Court may exercise its writ jurisdiction in the following contingencies: (i) Where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (ii) Where there is failure of principle of natural justice; (iii) Where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or vires of any Act is under challenge. 20. It is admitted that the petitioners are not challenging the bill issued by the opposite party-company or the licensee on the ground of failure of principle of natural justice or orders being wholly without jurisdiction. The vires of any Act is also not challenged. Then the only question that remains is, whether there has been a violation of fundamental right in this case, though not urged by the learned Senior Counsel Sri Parag Tripathy, the underlying rational of his argument is that the action of the NESCO or the licensee is arbitrary and, therefore, it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. This is so because of anything arbitrary violates equality before law and equal protection before law and, therefore, it is to be seen whether there is an arbitrary use of powers at the hands of the licensee, so as to warrant interference by this Court. This question is contingent upon several other features and submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties, both factual and legal. Hence, this question shall be answered at the end of the judgment after considering the rival contentions on various issues. 21. The second question formulated by this Court is whether the settlement dated 31.01.2005 were acted upon or cancelled. Hence, this question shall be answered at the end of the judgment after considering the rival contentions on various issues. 21. The second question formulated by this Court is whether the settlement dated 31.01.2005 were acted upon or cancelled. Whether the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties on 31.01.2005 were cancelled due to deviation on the part of the petitioner-company? From the records, it is evident that the Balasore Alloys Ltd. (in short, hereinafter referred to as "BAL") was receiving power from OSEB since 1984 and an agreement was entered into on 31.01.1991 for supply of 28,000 KVA power. On 01.01.2005 a bill of Rs. 112.39 Crores, out of which arrear was Rs. 106.03 Crores, was raised. On 31.01.2005 a settlement was reached and a Minutes of Meeting was reduced into writing and signed by the representatives of both the companies. It was for settling the arrear dues from 1999 to 31.12.2004 as well as to regularize drawal of energy by the petitioner from 28 MVA to 35 MVA. The parties decided on 31.01.2005 to reduce the outstanding dues of the petitioner-company from Rs. 108.25 Crores to Rs. 40.35 Crores as on 31.12.2004 with a condition that the petitioner-company will pay the reduced amount in 20 monthly instalments starting from January, 2005 to August, 2006 along with other norms for failure of payment of instalments in time. The petitioner-company agreed to pay the subsequent instalments commencing from April, 2005. The parties then at Clause 7(i) agreed that the total outstanding amount payable by BAL to NESCO as on 31.12.2004 is at Rs. 3885.98 lacs after considering Rs. 150 lacs paid on 31.12.2004 by cheque. The petitioner-company i.e. BAL agrees to pay the outstanding amount along with the security deposit in monthly instalments commencing from January, 2005 in the manner given thereunder. Accordingly, a schedule was prepared for payment of outstanding dues on monthly basis and amount to be paid towards security instalments (total Rs. 480.00 lacs). Thus, the parties agree that the BAL shall pay Rs. 4365.98 lacs by 31.08.2006. At clause 2(b) BAL agreed to pay the subsequent instalments commencing from April, 2005 by due date as mentioned in the repayment schedule at clause 7 (i) as afore discussed. 480.00 lacs). Thus, the parties agree that the BAL shall pay Rs. 4365.98 lacs by 31.08.2006. At clause 2(b) BAL agreed to pay the subsequent instalments commencing from April, 2005 by due date as mentioned in the repayment schedule at clause 7 (i) as afore discussed. It further undertook that in case of any 6 (six) defaults in payment by due date, it shall be liable to pay interest @ 11% per annum for the period of default, the BAL shall pay to the NESCO the defaulted monthly instalments along with interest by the due date of next monthly instalment. In case of default of BAL in paying the monthly instalments of outstanding including the interest, consecutively for 2(two) months, then the BAL will be liable to pay interest @ 14% for the entire default period. It was further agreed that in case, the BAL commits any 6(six) defaults in making payment of interest along with the instalment during the tenure of repayment schedule as mentioned earlier, the scheme of settlement as agreed between the parties shall also stand cancelled and BAL shall be liable to pay the amount as per Annexure-II to the minutes of discussion. Annexure-II provides a total of Rs. 10826.28 lacs. It was also agreed that in case of default in payment of security deposit as per the agreed time schedule, the contract demand shall stand modified to 28 MVA and the billing will be done on the basis of Contract Demand of 28 MVA and BAL shall be liable to pay over drawal charges. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner-company started making payment of the first ten monthly instalments as per the schedule indicated in the minutes of discussion. However, in view of the recession in the international market, the petitioner no.1-company could not pay the balance ten instalments and requested NESCO to defer payment of the balance amount for a period of twelve months. It is further claimed that on 20.11.2006 and 30.11.2006 BAL paid two further instalments which were duly received by NESCO having paid twelve monthly instalments and requested the NESCO to re-schedule the repayment dues and the balance dues and to consider the dues on 31.08.2007. It is further claimed that on 20.11.2006 and 30.11.2006 BAL paid two further instalments which were duly received by NESCO having paid twelve monthly instalments and requested the NESCO to re-schedule the repayment dues and the balance dues and to consider the dues on 31.08.2007. the C.E.O. extended the due dates of payment of balance towards instalment subject to the condition that the petitioner no.1 company opens a letter of credit in a schedule/nationalized bank at Balasore for an amount of Rs. 16 Crores, which would cover the balance eight months instalment payable and accordingly, the same has been done. However, this aspect is refuted by the NESCO. It is submitted that the same communication cannot be treated as superseding and/or modifying the minutes of discussion held on 31.01.2005 by the petitioner as the said minutes of discussion was a joint decision taken by both the parties and subsequently approved by the Board of Directors of NESCO in their 42nd Board Meeting held on 28.05.2005. Thus, it is seen from the facts of the case that having defaulted in the payment schedule, the petitioner-company has violated the terms and conditions of the minutes of the discussion held on 31.01.2005 and therefore, the settlement dated 31.05.2005 was cancelled automatically as it was not properly acted upon. The question is accordingly decided. 22. Coming to the next question regarding the interpretation of the letter issued by the Balasore Alloys Ltd. on 05.03.2011 as in Annexure-E. It is apparent from the records that on 14.02.2011, the outstanding was calculated up to 31.01.2011 and the revised outstanding has been calculated as Rs. 10799.29 lacs. The break up of the same as per the letter of the NESCO is as follows: EC 37836.83 lacs ED 75.83 lacs DPS 6876.63 lacs ODP Nil Total 10799.29 lacs Thereafter, the Senior General Manager, Finance of the petitioner-company referred to the minutes of the meeting and appealed that looking at the precarious financial position of the Company as a gesture of goodwill for a consumer of its size, DPS and Penalty (ODP) may be waived. The Managing Director and other officials of the NESCO felt that this proposition can be considered and will be put forth before their BoD for its consideration and approval. In that connection, the Senior Manager of Balasore Alloys Ltd. submitted that an amount of Rs. The Managing Director and other officials of the NESCO felt that this proposition can be considered and will be put forth before their BoD for its consideration and approval. In that connection, the Senior Manager of Balasore Alloys Ltd. submitted that an amount of Rs. 1660.10 lacs paid to NESCO during the period from November, 1997 to January, 2011 has been included in E.C. by NESCO, which should have been included under DPS. Secondly, a sum of Rs. 675.34 lacs towards ODP is also included in EC by NESCO instead of showing as ODP. So after considering the minutes of the meeting, the Senior General Manager (Finance) wrote that the revised table will be as under: EC 1511.38 lacs ED 75.83 lacs DPS 8536.73 lacs ODP 675.34 lacs Total 10799.29 lacs. He then requested the NESCO to revise the bill as per MOM dated 10th January, 2011, so as to settle the issue once for all. This matter was placed before the Board of Directors. The BOD as per their meeting dated 28.03.2011 observed as follows: "While confirming the reconciled figure, M/s. BAL represented that total arrear up to January, 2011 (including current bill of January, 2011) is Rs. 10799.29 lacks but submitted with modified breakup of the arrear as follows: EC 1511.38 lacs ED 75.83 lacs DPS 8536.73 lacs ODP 675.34 lacs Total 10799.29 lacs." Accordingly, the matter was placed before the Board and the Board deliberated on the issue and decided that vis-a-vis Rs. 16168.00 lacs M/s. BAL may pay Rs. 10799.29 lacs according to the calculation and break up as per NESCO subject to the condition that this amount is paid by M/s BAL by 31st March, 2011 in order to avail the benefit of this settlement. Thus, it is clear from the record that M/s. BAL has admitted his liability to Rs. 107.99 lacs in the aforesaid letter, which was put before the Board of Directors of the NESCO and was approved. Now, the petitioner company again argues that it has taken up the said amount only with the intention of making request to the NESCO to waive out of DPS and ODP of Rs. 85373 lacs and Rs. 675.34 lakhs respectively. There is no such averment or mention or request in the letter dated 05.03.2011, Annexure-A. Accordingly, it is decided that M/s. BAL has admitted his dues as Rs. 107.99 Crores. 23. 85373 lacs and Rs. 675.34 lakhs respectively. There is no such averment or mention or request in the letter dated 05.03.2011, Annexure-A. Accordingly, it is decided that M/s. BAL has admitted his dues as Rs. 107.99 Crores. 23. The next issue to be adjudged in this case is whether the amount claimed by NESCO to the tune of Rs. 80,77,19,560.07 is shown as a provisionally withheld amount in its bill shall be excluded from the arrear dues under Sub-Section (2) of Section 56 of the Electricity Act. Section 56 reads as follows: "56. Disconnection of supply in default of payment-(1) Where any person neglects to pay any charge for electricity or any sum other than a charge for electricity due from him to a licensee or the generating company in respect of supply, transmission or distribution or wheeling of electricity to him, the licensee or the generating company may, after giving not less than fifteen clear days' notice in writing, to such person and without prejudice to his rights to recover such charge or other sum by suit, cut off the supply of electricity and for that purpose cut or disconnect any electric supply line or other works being the property of such licensee or the generating company through which electricity may be been supplied, transmitted, distributed or wheeled and may discontinue the supply until such charge or other sum, together with any expenses incurred by him in cutting off and reconnecting the supply, are paid but no longer; Provided that the supply of electricity shall not be cut off if such person deposits, under protest,- (a) an amount equal to the sum claimed from him, or (b) the electricity charges due from him for each month calculated on the basis of average charge for electricity paid by him during the preceding six months, whichever is less, pending disposal of any dispute between him and the licensee. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no sum due from any consumer, under this section shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity." In interpreting this provision, the Division Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of Awadesh S.Pandey v. Tata Power Co.Ltd. and others, AIR 2007 Bombay 52, has held at paragraph 7 that Section 56(1) is a special provision, enabling the generating company or the licensee to cut-off supply of electricity until such charges or sum as demanded under section 56(1) is paid. The Bombay High Court further ruled that sub-section (2) only provides a limitation, that the recourse to recovery by cutting of electricity supply is limited for a period of two years from the date when such sum became due. As long a sum is due, which is within two years of the demand and can be recovered, the licensee of the generating company can exercise its power of coercive process of recovery by cutting of electricity supply. This is a special mechanism provided to enable the licensee or the generating company to recover its dues expeditiously. The Electricity Act has provided that mechanism for improvement of supply of electricity and to enable the licensee or generating company to recover its dues. The Division Bench further held that apart from the above mechanism, independently it can make recovery by way of a suit. This provision also came for consideration before a Bench of this court in Executive Engineer (Electrical-I) and another v. Emami Paper Mills Ltd. and another, 110 (2010) CLT 548, wherein this Court has held that unless and until a statute limits right of an authority to assess, compute or to serve a bill, it cannot be said that the authority loses its right to demand the money due to it, by serving a bill. However, after service of a bill the period of limitation for recovery of the same would arise and if payment is not made within three years, the right of the undertaking to file a suit would be lost. However, after service of a bill the period of limitation for recovery of the same would arise and if payment is not made within three years, the right of the undertaking to file a suit would be lost. Thus, a plain reading of the aforesaid section and the afore-quoted cases, it is clear that the Electricity Act, 2003 gives a special power to the licensee or the transmission company to disconnect supply of electricity after giving not less than 15 clear days' notice in writing to such persons and without prejudice to its right to recover such charge or other sum by suit, cut off the supply of electricity and for that purpose cut or disconnect any electric supply line or other works being the property of such licensee or the generating company through which electricity may have been supplied, transmitted, distributed or wheeled and may discontinue the supply until such charge or other sum, together with any expenses incurred by him in cutting off and reconnecting the supply, are paid, but no longer. Sub-section (2) provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no sum due from any consumer, under this section shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity. This special provision of coercive step of disconnecting power supply to any defaulting party is not available to the licensee in case such a claim has been made after two years of the date, when such sum became first due, unless it is being continuously shown as recoverable charges for the electricity supplied. 24. In this case there is no dispute that in the energy bills of the relevant period an amount of Rs. 80,77,19,560.07 has been shown as provisionally withheld. The question, therefore, remains to be decided whether such action on the part of the NESCO showing the D.P.S. as provisionally withheld amount shall be recoverable as arrears chargeable on electricity. Mr. Tripathy, learned Senior Counsel very emphatically argued that the licensee having not shown the same as the charges against the petitioner company, the same cannot be recovered from it after expiry of two years from the date it became first due. Mr. Tripathy, learned Senior Counsel very emphatically argued that the licensee having not shown the same as the charges against the petitioner company, the same cannot be recovered from it after expiry of two years from the date it became first due. Mr. Sanjit Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel agreed that the expression "provisionally withheld" means that the company reserves the right to impose the same on the petitioner company, if the terms and conditions of the settlement are not honoured by the petitioner-company, then the said amount is to be recovered from it. 25. Thus, the expression "shown continuously recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied" requires interpretation. Literal rule of interpretation of statute requires that, the words of the Statute should be used in its ordinary dictionary meaning. Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes (Twelfth Edition by P.St. J.Langan) at Chapter 2 Page 28 writes that the first and most elementary rule of construction is that it is to be assumed that the words and phrases of technical legislation are used in their technical meaning if they have acquired one, and otherwise in their ordinary meaning, and the second is that the phrases and sentences are to be construed according to the rules of grammar. Maxwell is of the further opinion that it is natural corollary to the general rule of literal construction that nothing is to be added to or taken from a statute unless there are adequate grounds to justify inference that the legislature intended something which it omitted to express. A construction which would leave without effect any part of the language of a statute will normally be rejected. At page 43, Maxwell speaks about the golden rule of construction. He quotes Parke B as follows: "It is a very useful rule, in the construction of a statute, to adhere to the ordinary meaning of the words used, and to the grammatical construction, unless that is at variance with the intention of the legislature, to be collected from the statute itself, or leads to any manifest absurdity or repugnance, in which case the language may be varied or modified, so as to avoid such inconvenience, but no further." This is really a modification of literal rule of construction. 26. 26. If we apply rule of construction to the case in hand, then we find that the literal meaning of the expression aforesaid is any energy charges due in order to be recovered from the consumer has to be continuously shown as recoverable from the date it became due. Unless it is shown as a recoverable due, then it shall not be taken into consideration while disconnecting electricity under Section 56 (1) of the Electricity Act, which is a weapon of coercive power given to the licensee. The Act does not define the term 'recoverable'. Hence, it was to be used in its ordinary grammatical meaning. The Concise Oxford Dictionary 10th Edition defines 'recoverable' as a derivative of the word 'recover'. The word 'recoverable' is an adjective and the word 'recover' is a verb. The word 'recover' has been defined as (i) return to a normal state of health, mind or strength; (2) find or regain possession of, regain control of (oneself or a physical or mental state)., regain or secure (compensation). 3 remove or extract (an energy source, chemical, etc.) for use, reuse, or waste treatment. Thus, in this sense, 'recover' means 'regain' or 'secured'. In Black's Law Dictionary, 'recoverable' is defined as "Capable of being recovered, esp. as a matter of law". Thus, recoverable means in this specific context, any amount, which can be legitimately claimed as arrear dues of the electricity supply. In that sense of the term, it shall also include the amount shown as provisionally withheld. This is so, because as per their agreement initially entered into on 31.01.2005, there will be a waiver of D.P.S. charges and there shall be no penal charges for excess drawal of electricity, but the remaining part of the electricity dues shall be paid in accordance with their terms and conditions agreed upon. In that view of the matter, the NESCO has shown this amount about Rs. 87 Crores as provisionally withheld. In that view of the matter, the NESCO has shown this amount about Rs. 87 Crores as provisionally withheld. So the contention that the amount has been shown as recoverable dues for the past years in the bill is acceptable, rather than the plea that it has not been shown as dues recoverable from the petitioner company and as such, the notice issued by the NESCO to the petitioner company under Section 56(1) of the Electricity Act for disconnection of electricity on the non-payment of the electricity dues, is not hit by the limitation prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 56 of the Act. The contention of the petitioner-company that the notice issued under Section 56(1) of the Act is hit by limitation prescribed in Sub-Section (2) of Section 56 is unacceptable. Hence, the fourth question formulated by this Court is answered against the petitioner-company. 27. The first question that was formulated by the Court has to be answered in negative and against the petitioner company, since there is no arbitrary action on the part of the electricity company or the licensee. There appears to be no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and hence, the writ application is not maintainable, in view of the availability of the alternative remedy as envisaged under Section 42(5) of the Act. 28. With this observation, the writ application is dismissed.