ORDER 1. W.P. (MD) No. 8056 of 2012 has been filed to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the impugned proceedings bearing Lr. No. ACE/PEDC/PDKT/DEV/AE II/F.HT/D. No. 233/12 dated 19.5.2012 and direct the respondents to forthwith provide the petitioner the additional load of 450 KVA as sought for by the petitioner vide his application dated 12.3.2012. 2. W.P. (MD)No.13076 of 2012 has been filed to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the impugned proceedings bearing Lr. No. SE/PEDC/ PDKT/ DEV/ AEII/F.HT/D. No. 387/12 dated 23.8.2012 and direct the respondents to forthwith provide the petitioner the additional load of 690 KVA as sought for by the petitioner vide his application dated 16.7.2012. 3. Heard Mr. N.L. Rajah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S.M.S. Johnny Basha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. By consent, both the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal and in view of the fact that the issue involved in both the writ petitions, is one and the same, this common order is passed. 5. The impugned order passed in both the writ petitions, appear to be a never ending process as such orders are churned out of the mills of the respondent Electricity Board again and again. 6. The petitioner in both the cases, sought for additional demand of 450 KVA and 690 KVA over and above the existing demand of 1,600 KVA and 800 KVA respectively. The respective applications filed by the petitioner for additional demand, have been returned by the impugned proceedings and the relevant portions are extracted hereunder: W.P. (MD) No. 8056 of 2012: “The HT application requesting for an addl. demand of 450 KVA over and above the existing demand of 1600 KVA is returned herewith for the following reasons: 1) An amount of Rs. 6,94,810/(Rupees six lakshs ninety four thousand eight hundred and ten only) is pending to be collected towards reliability charges of Harihar Alloys (P) Ltd, HT.SC. No. 121 and also obtain stay to collect the arrears. 2) 1 No. Court case in W.P. No. 14627 of 2010 of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is pending towards reliability charges filed by you against Board. Please note that your HT application for an addl. No. 121 and also obtain stay to collect the arrears. 2) 1 No. Court case in W.P. No. 14627 of 2010 of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is pending towards reliability charges filed by you against Board. Please note that your HT application for an addl. demand of 450 KVA will be only after clearing the Court case and settle the arrears amount towards the reliability power charges.” (extracted as such) W.P. (MD) No. 13076 of 2012: “The HT application requesting for an addl. demand of 690 KVA over and above the existing demand of 800 KVA is returned herewith for the following reasons. 1) An amount of Rs. 6,94,810/- (Rupees six lakshs ninety four thousand eight hundred and ten only) is pending to be collected towards reliability charges of Harihar Alloys (P) Ltd, HT.SC. No. 121. 2) 1 No. Court case is pending at Madurai Bench of Madras High Court challenging reliability charges. In regulation 5(2)(iv) of Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply code states that No addl. or reduction of demand may be sanctioned in case of HT services unless the outstanding dues in the same service had been paid. Please note that your HT application for an addl. demand of 690 KVA will be processed only after clearing the Court case and settle the arrears amount towards the reliability power charges.” (extracted as such) 7. It is not in dispute that Rs. 6,94,810/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Ninety Four Thousand Eight Hundred and Ten only) is a demand in respect of HT.SC. No. 121 and the impugned orders clearly state that the order of stay has been granted and the writ petition in which stay has been granted is W.P. No. 14627 of 2010. This has also been recorded in the impugned orders. After conceding that there is a writ petition pending and an order of stay has been granted in favour of the petitioner, the applications have been returned stating that the additional demand will be processed after clearing the Court case and settling the arrears of amounts. This response is the cause of action for filing the writ petitions. 8. This Court has consistently taken the view that the pendency of a writ petition cannot be a ground to deny a right to the petitioner including facilities if permissible under law, more so when the earlier proceedings are stayed by this Court. 9. This response is the cause of action for filing the writ petitions. 8. This Court has consistently taken the view that the pendency of a writ petition cannot be a ground to deny a right to the petitioner including facilities if permissible under law, more so when the earlier proceedings are stayed by this Court. 9. There is no provision under the Electricity Act relied upon by the respondent authority which prohibits the authority from granting certain facilities despite the order of stay passed by the Court in another case and on an another issue. 10. In Best Cotton Mills v. The Chief Engineer, (Distribution), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, in W.P. Nos. 11101 and 11102 of 2012 decided on 2.8.2012, the effect of the pendency of the writ petition and the interim order passed by the Court, was considered. Paragraph 14 of the said order applies to the facts of the present case and it is set out hereunder: “14. First of all, the second respondent is a party respondent in the earlier writ petitions where the demand was challenged and that has been stayed. The order of this Court staying the excess charges demanded has not been referred to in the impugned proceedings which is a deliberate omission by the respondent. If the respondent insists on payment as above it would amount to circumventing in the order of the Court passed in W.P. No. 12057 of 2011 staying the demand. Such a power, the authority does not have. If a demand is made for payment of dues which are the subject matter of pending writ petition it will amount to negating the interim order of this Court without vacating the order of stay by procedure prescribed. The respondents cannot claim payment of the amount indirectly which they failed to do directly that is by filing application to vacate the interim order of Court. An administrative authority by a mere letter, is trying to undo the order passed by the Constitutional Court in exercise of its power under Article 226. If such an act of the respondent is allowed to continue, it would shake the foundation of judicial review of administrative action by the Constitutional Court. This Court will not recuse itself from correcting such arbitrary acts.” This view applies to the present case in its entirety as the facts are almost similar. 11. If such an act of the respondent is allowed to continue, it would shake the foundation of judicial review of administrative action by the Constitutional Court. This Court will not recuse itself from correcting such arbitrary acts.” This view applies to the present case in its entirety as the facts are almost similar. 11. The respondent Board is at liberty to have the earlier pending writ petition disposed of before the appropriate Bench and recover the amount due if the earlier writ petition is dismissed. It will be unlawful to state that only after clearing the Court case and settling the arrears of amount, the additional demand will be granted. The said statement is an affront to the judicial authority and executive overreach. It is also contumacious as such a statement reveals the supine indifference of the authority to orders passed by Constitutional Court. 12. In view of the above, the impugned orders in both the writ petitions are set aside and both the writ petitions are allowed as prayed for. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. Petitions allowed.