JUDGMENT B.N. MAHAPATRA, J. : The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer to set aside the order dated 20.10.2012 (Annexure-1) passed by the Grievance Redressal Forum (in short, “GRF” in GRF C.C. No.246 of 2012, wherein the Grievance Redressal Forum, Balasore directed the opposite parties-Licensee not to disconnect the power supply to the complainant-petitioner’s premises subject to receipt of Rs.45.00 Crores (rupees forty-five crores) towards arrears within 21 days from the date of the order along with monthly current dues to be paid within due dates during pendency of the dispute before the GRF without prejudice to the rights and interest of the parties concerned. Further prayer of the petitioners is to quash the disconnection notice dated 30.08.2012 (Annexure-2) issued by opposite party No.2-Executive Engineer, CED, Balasore under Section 56(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short, “Act, 2003”) read with Regulation 100 of the OERC Distribution (Condition of Supply) Code, 2004, wherein petitioners were informed to clear up the dues of Rs.1,67,77,40,435/- (rupees one hundred sixty-seven crore seventy-seven lakh forty thousand four hundred and thirty-five) within 15 days from the date of receipt of that notice and in the event of failure to make such payment electric connection would be disconnected without any further notice. 2.Misc. Case No.18034 of 2012 has been filed along with the present writ petition with a prayer to stay operation of the notice of disconnection dated 30.08.2012 (Annexure-2). 3.Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the impugned order passed under Annexure-1 by the GRF as well as the order dated 30.08.2012 (Annexure-2) issued by opposite party No.2, is without any basis, erroneous in law, non-speaking order and completely arbitrary. Opposite parties-NESCO in their objection to the petitioners’ interim application filed before GRF have clearly stated that the present proceeding may be adjourned till hearing of the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by them in the Hon’ble Supreme Court. While on one hand NESCO seeks adjournment of the interim application, on the other hand it simultaneously and contradictorily requests the GRF to direct the petitioners to make a deposit in the interim. A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.09.2012 (Annexure-21) disposed of the Writ Appeal bearing W.A. No.304 of 2012 giving liberty to the appellant-petitioners to raise all the questions before the GRF. A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.09.2012 (Annexure-21) disposed of the Writ Appeal bearing W.A. No.304 of 2012 giving liberty to the appellant-petitioners to raise all the questions before the GRF. In the said order, this Hon’ble Court further directed the GRF to decide the matter within three months from the date of filing of the application by the petitioners before it. Pursuant to the order under Annexure-21 passed in W.A. No.304 of 2012, the petitioners filed an application on 10.10.2012. Hence the matter was to be disposed of by the GRF by 10th January, 2013. It was further submitted that this Court also ordered not to disconnect power supply till disposal of the interim application. This Court also made it clear that the GRF shall not be in any manner influenced by the judgment dated 24.08.2012 rendered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.33090 of 2011. The learned Single Judge in the order dated 24.08.2012 has given no finding on quantum and/or liability of the petitioners. The finding of the learned Single Judge is that the writ petition was not maintainable, in view of the availability of the alternative remedy as envisaged under Section 42(5) of the Act, 2003. The current monthly electricity dues are being regularly and duly paid by the petitioners. 4.A written note of submission indicating the relevant dates with regard to the dispute between the parties was filed by the opposite parties-Licensee. According to such written note of submissions, on 31.01.2005 One Time Settlement (OTS) was entered into by the parties whereby delayed payment surcharges etc. was waived and as per such settlement the demand raised against the petitioners was reduced to Rs.38.85 crores from Rs.108.25 Crores. It was submitted that due to economic meltdown and financial crisis in the markets, petitioners after paying more than 50% of the settlement amount, requested for a moratorium of one year. On 02.03.2006, NESCO authority cancelled the OTS order. On 31.08.2007, CEO, NESCO issued a letter accepting the petitioners proposal to make payment of the balance dues (approximately Rs.16 crores) under OTS by 8 instalments. On 04.09.2007, NESCO acted on the novated agreement by removing the ‘disputed’ amount from its current bill and placed it in a ‘provisionally’ withheld’ account and did not show it as due and recoverable from the petitioners. On 04.09.2007, NESCO acted on the novated agreement by removing the ‘disputed’ amount from its current bill and placed it in a ‘provisionally’ withheld’ account and did not show it as due and recoverable from the petitioners. Thus, NESCO by its own actions gave a goby and/or superseded the purported earlier cancellation letter and accepted payment under an altered time schedule. The 8th installment and the entire OTS amount was paid by 17.04.2008 and there was no outstanding due remaining under the OTS to be paid by the petitioners to NESCO. On 16.12.2010, NESCO issued disconnection notice to the petitioners which is after two and a half years from the payment of 8th installment under OTS. 5.It was further submitted that on 05.01.2011 the petitioners filed a writ petition before this Court. This Court was pleased to direct the petitioners to approach the GRF. Moreover, the petitioners were granted protection for a period of four weeks during which time there shall be no disconnection of power supply from the petitioners’ premises. On 07.01.2011 and 10.01.2011 both the petitioners and opposite parties-NESCO entered into a settlement, wherein both the parties agreed that a settlement would be arrived at and the GRF would not be approached. On 05.03.2011 without prejudice to the negotiations, a letter was issued by the petitioners attempting to clarify the accounting calculations since the petitioners’ stand is that DPS and ODP should be waived and in this context NESCO’s calculations were wrong as DPS/ODP figures were very low when in fact it was much higher and should be waived totally. Therefore, it was submitted that said letter cannot be constituted as an admission as alleged by NESCO. NESCO is deliberately forcing a false, incorrect and mala fide interpretation of the said letter. On 25.03.2011, a letter issued by the petitioners at the relevant time clearly shows that the petitioners requested for waiver of ODP and DPS so that amount if any payable by the petitioners would be nominal amount. On 25.05.2011, CEO issued a letter to the petitioners stating that ‘pending the decision of NESCO Board’, NESCO will not resort to disconnection of electricity supply subject to petitioner’s conformity of certain things mentioned in the said letter. The three conditions imposed by NESCO were also acted upon by the petitioners. Till date no Board decision in this regard has been communicated to the petitioners. The three conditions imposed by NESCO were also acted upon by the petitioners. Till date no Board decision in this regard has been communicated to the petitioners. The petitioners have made full payment of money due under the OTS. No further payment is due from the petitioners to NESCO. However, without prejudice to the aforesaid, the petitioners offered to make ex-gratia payment of Rs.28.22 crores. Out of the said amount of Rs.28.22 Crores, an amount of Rs.14 crores has already been paid by the petitioners over and above the current monthly electricity dues. Thus, the petitioners have already paid Rs.58 crores approximately (Rs.43.65 crores under the OTS + Rs. 14 crores - ex-gratia additional payment). On 16.12.2011, NESCO issued a disconnection notice and the said disconnection notice was the subject matter before the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.33090 of 2011 which was subsequently carried in W.A. No.304 of 2012, and pursuant to the order passed in the said writ appeal, the parties are before the GRF. It is submitted that once power supply is disconnected, the petitioners would be put to huge loss and 2005 workers, whose family members are fully depending on the petitioners would be virtually starving. Therefore, it is prayed that the interim order passed under Annexure-1 is to be set aside and the disconnection notice under Annexure-2 is liable to be quashed. 6.Mr. Sanjit Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the opposite parties-NESCO submitted that the opposite parties have filed Special Leave Petition bearing SLP (C) No.34579 of 2012 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court challenging certain observations made in the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.304 of 2012. The said SLP is directed to be listed on 09.11.2012. The petitioners have suppressed the material facts by not pleading and bringing the relevant documents, i.e., order dated 05.01.2011 passed in W.P.(C) No.120 of 2011, interim order dated 26.12.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.33090 of 2011, W.A. No.2 of 2011 filed against the said interim order dated 26.12.2011 to the notice of this Court. By order dated 09.01.2012 passed in W.A. No.2 of 2012, this Court has clearly directed/observed that the petitioners are at liberty to urge all factual and legal contentions assailing the disconnection notice dated 16.12.2011 which was issued under Section 56(1) for non-payment of Rs.165.51 Crores. By order dated 09.01.2012 passed in W.A. No.2 of 2012, this Court has clearly directed/observed that the petitioners are at liberty to urge all factual and legal contentions assailing the disconnection notice dated 16.12.2011 which was issued under Section 56(1) for non-payment of Rs.165.51 Crores. Pursuant to the said direction dated 09.01.2012 in W.A. No.2 of 2012 of this Court all factual and legal contentions were raised by the present petitioners in W.P.(C) No.33090 of 2011. The learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 24.08.2012 in W.P.(C) No.33090 of 2011 has answered all issues against the petitioner upholding the disconnection notice for non-payment of Rs.165.51 crores. In view of Section 11 Explanation IV of CPC adjudication is conclusive and final not only as to the actual matter determined but as to every other matter which the parties might and ought to have litigated . Therefore, the subsequent application before the GRF and the present writ petition arising out of the impugned order of GRF is not maintainable. Despite filing of Caveat on 25.10.2002 and the Writ Petition on 02.11.2012, copy of the writ petition was served only on 06.11.2012. As would be apparent from the contents of SLP (C) No.34579 of 2012, only a part of the order dated 13.09.2012 passed in W.A. No.304 of 2012 (Annexure-21) was challenged wherein this Court directed that GRF shall not be in any manner influenced by the judgment dated 24.08.2012 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.33090 of 2011, despite holding that it did not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment dated 24.08.2012 to be interfered with. The last portion of the order of the High Court passed in W.A. No.304 of 2012 is contrary to the principles laid down in the case of State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta, AIR 1952 SC 12 , which states an interim relief can be granted only in aid of and as ancillary to the main relief which may be available to the party on final determination of his rights in suits or proceedings. The petitioners cannot approach simultaneously two forums arising out of order dated 13.09.2012 passed in W.A. No.304 of 2012 of this Court, i.e., to the GRF and also to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP having Diary No.35-262 of 2012 as evident from paragraph-21 of W.P.(C) No.20886 of 2012. The petitioners cannot approach simultaneously two forums arising out of order dated 13.09.2012 passed in W.A. No.304 of 2012 of this Court, i.e., to the GRF and also to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP having Diary No.35-262 of 2012 as evident from paragraph-21 of W.P.(C) No.20886 of 2012. Therefore, the present writ petition which has been arisen out of the order passed by the GRF is not maintainable. As all the issues have been decided in W.P.(C) No.33090 of 2011 vide judgment dated 24.08.2012, the petitioners have no prima facie case so far interim order is concerned as well as maintainability of the writ petition against the order dated 20.10.2012 of GRF. The petitioners have deliberated and canvassed the points of submission which are nothing but the repetition of the subject matter of the writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.33090 of 2011, which were already settled and answered against them in the judgment dated 24.08.2012, inter alia with the observation that M/s. Bal has admitted his dues as Rs.107.99 crores. 7.Mr. Mohanty, further submitted that the GRF had directed the petitioner to make payment of Rs.45 crores as against the arrear dues of Rs.167,77,40,235/- along with monthly current dues. The said direction for payment of Rs.45 crores is justified for the reason that earlier this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 05.01.2012 passed in W.P.(C) No.33090 of 2011 and Misc.Case No.56 of 2012 has also directed payment of Rs.45 crores which was not interfered by this Court in W.A. No.2 of 2012 as the Writ Appellate Court directed for entire hearing on all points. The learned Single Judge pursuant to the said direction dated 09.01.2012 in W.A. No.2 of 2012 has taken into consideration all the issues and upheld the disconnection notice dated 16.12.2011 for non-payment of Rs.165.51 crores against the present petitioner. Referring to Section 42(6) of the Electricity Act, 2003 as well as Regulation 7 of the OERC (GRF and OMB) Regulation, 2004, it is submitted that any consumer aggrieved by the non-redressal of the grievance by the Forum, may make a representation to the Ombudsman within thirty days from the date of the decision of the Forum or within thirty days from the date of expiry of the period within which the Forum was required to take decision and communicate the same to the Complainant. Referring to the aforesaid provisions, it is also submitted that the petitioners should have gone to the Ombudsman and not directly to this Court in this writ petition. 8.It was further submitted that now if at any event, this Court considers the writ petition, then the question of rationality, proportionality, the balance of convenience, prima facie case and the irreparable loss or irreparable remedies may be taken into account. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 24.08.2012 passed in W.P.(C) No.33090 of 2011, Mr. Mohanty, submitted that no prima facie case is available to the petitioners. It is also submitted that amount of Rs.45 crores out of Rs.167,77,40,235/- would not tilt the balance of convenience or petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and injury. So far as the rationality and proportionality are concerned, the amount so directed in the impugned interim order under Annexure-1 passed by the GRF is not of course so rational and proportional in comparison to the quantum of demand in the disconnection notice following non-payment of the bill. Therefore, the petitioners should have been directed to deposit more than that amount. Referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Asst.Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal v. Dunlop India Ltd. and others, AIR 1985 SC 330 , it is submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court have also deprecated the interim direction/order passed by various Courts, by holding any mini trial or giving any detailed reasons which touches the final adjudication and at the same time also condemned the action of the petitioners, the beneficiary of such orders protracting the litigations to enjoy the order for indefinite periods causing casualty to the other side and also the State authorities. Concluding his argument, Mr. Mohanty, submitted not to interfere wit the impugned order under Annexure-1 passed by the GRF. 9.On the rival contentions advanced by the parties, the following questions fall for consideration by this Court: (i)Whether the present writ petition is maintainable on the ground of availability of alternative remedy ? (ii)Whether in view of the judgment dated 24.08.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.33090 of 2011, the subsequent application filed by the petitioner before the GRF is maintainable ? (iii)What order ? 10.As question Nos.(i) and (ii) are interlinked with each other, they are dealt with together. (ii)Whether in view of the judgment dated 24.08.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.33090 of 2011, the subsequent application filed by the petitioner before the GRF is maintainable ? (iii)What order ? 10.As question Nos.(i) and (ii) are interlinked with each other, they are dealt with together. 11.To deal with the above questions, it is necessary to extract the relevant portion of order dated 13.09.2012 passed by this Court in W.A. No.304 of 2012. “Considering the said submission, we give liberty to the appellants to raise all the questions before the Grievance Redressal Forum by filing an application. If such an application is filed within a period of three weeks from today, the Geievance Redressal forum shall decide the matter within a period of three months thereafter. If any application is filed by the appellants for interim order, the Grievance Redressal Forum shall hear and dispose of the same within two weeks from the date of its filing. Till disposal of the interim application, there shall be no disconception of power supply to the premises of the appellants’ company subject to them making payment of monthly current dues. If they fail to pay, the present order shall be treated as non-est. We also give liberty to the appellants to approach this Court in the event they are in any manner aggrieved either by any interim order or final order to be passed by the Grievance Redressal Forum. We make it clear that the Grievance Redressal Forum shall not be in any manner influenced by the judgment dated 24.8.2012 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.33090 of 2011.” 12.According to Mr. Mohanty, certain observations/directions made in the above order have been challenged by the opposite parties-NESCO before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.34579 of 2012. It is not the case of opposite parties that any interim order has been passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court restraining the Grievance Redressal Forum to proceed with the grievance petition filed by the petitioner pursuant to the above order of this Court dated 13.09.2012 passed in W.A. No.304 of 2012. Mr. Mohanty has submitted that the petitioners have filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It was not brought to the notice of this Court if any order has been passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in said SLP. Mr. Mohanty has submitted that the petitioners have filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It was not brought to the notice of this Court if any order has been passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in said SLP. In the circumstances, the order dated 13.09.2012 passed in W.A. No.304 of 2012 governs the field. In the said order, liberty was given to the petitioner to raise all the questions before the GRF by filing an application and the GRF was also directed to decide the matter within three months from date of filing of the application. This Court further directed if any, application is filed by the petitioners for any interim order, GRF shall hear and dispose of the same within two weeks from the date of its filing. Further liberty was also given to the petitioners to approach this Court in the event they are in any manner aggrieved either by any interim order or final order to be passed by the Grievance Redressal Forum. 13.In view of the above findings/directions of this Court in order dated 13.09.2012 passed in W.A. No.304 of 2012 I am of the opinion that the present writ petition is maintainable and GRF has not committed any wrong in entertaining the grievance application filed by the petitioners. 14.The GRF should proceed with the grievance application of the petitioner strictly in accordance with the order dated 13.09.2012 passed by this Court in W.A. No.304 of 2012 subject to any order that may be passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the SLPs filed by the parties. 15.From the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds that OTS was entered into by the parties on 31.01.2005 by which the demand raised against the petitioner was reduced to Rs.38.85 crores from Rs.108.25 crores. Since the petitioners could not make payment in time as per OTS, the OTS was cancelled. On 25.05.2011, CEO issued a letter to the petitioners stating that ‘pending the decision of NESCO Board’, NESCO will not resort to disconnection of electricity supply subject to petitioners’ conformity of certain things mentioned in the said letter. According to petitioners, the three conditions imposed by NESCO were also acted upon by them and till date, no Board decision has been communicated to the petitioners. The petitioners have made full payment of money due under the OTS. According to petitioners, the three conditions imposed by NESCO were also acted upon by them and till date, no Board decision has been communicated to the petitioners. The petitioners have made full payment of money due under the OTS. No further payment is due from the petitioners to NESCO. Petitioners’ case is that, in the meantime they have already paid Rs.58 crores approximately (Rs.43.65 crores under the OTS + Rs. 14 crores ex-gratia additional payment) and there is nothing more to be paid to the opposite parties. Case of the opposite parties is that there is balance dues of Rs.167,77,40,235/- to be paid by the petitioners. Undisputedly, contentious issues are involved in the present case. In any event the matter is pending with GRF for determination of the actual liability of the petitioners to be paid to the opposite parties. 16.In the facts situation, this Court directs that if the petitioners pay Rs.30 (thirty) crores in three equal instalments as indicated below, power supply to the unit of the petitioners shall not be disconnected by the opposite parties till disposal of the petitioners’ grievance application filed before the GRF pursuant to order of this Court dated 13.09.2012 passed in W.A.No.304 of 2012. (i)First instalment of Rs.10.00 crores (rupees ten crores) shall be paid by 25.11.2012, (ii)Second instalment of Rs.10.00 crores (rupees ten crores) shall be paid by 15.12.2012, and (iii)Third instalment of Rs.10.00 crores (rupees ten crores) shall be paid by the end of December, 2012. 17.This Court also makes it clear that if the petitioners fail to make payment of any of the instalments as directed above, it is open to the opposite parties to take action against the petitioners in accordance with law. The petitioners shall go on paying monthly current dues. 18.In the result, order dated 20.10.2012 (Annexure-1) passed by the Grievance Redressal Forum in GRF C.C. No.246 of 2012 is modified to the extent indicated above. In view of this order, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners pursuant to order dated 30.08.2012 passed under Annexure-2. 19.This order is subject to any order that may be passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petitions filed by the parties. 20.The writ petition as well as the Misc. Case is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and direction. Cases disposed of.