JUDGMENT : RAJESH H. SHUKLA, J. 1. The present petition is filed by the Petitioner–Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as well as under the Electricity Act 2003 for the prayer inter alia that appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued quashing and setting aside the order passed in Appeal No.36 of 2005 by the appellate authority–Electrical Inspector dated 12.5.2006 confirming the bill (at Annexure-B) issued by the petitioner and also for stay of the order on the grounds stated in the memo of petition. 2. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya for the petitioner and learned Advocate Shri S.N. Thakkar for the Respondent. 3. Learned Advocate Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya has referred to the papers at length and submitted that the case is about the unauthorized use of electricity and the appellate authority has no power or jurisdiction to modify or set aside the bill of the petitioner. She pointedly referred to the sketch at page 68 and 69 and submitted that it is obvious that the electricity, as a consumer, granted to the respondent, is misused in another premises. She referred to the papers and also the appeal produced on record referring to the contentions by both the sides and submitted that the appellate authority-the Electrical Officer has no authority or jurisdiction. She emphasized that it has been also found that the respondent has started the use of electricity in Plot No.206-A without any permission and authority, and therefore, it amounts to unauthorized use. She referred to the background of the case and submitted that the Respondent is a Company registered under the Companies Act whereas M/s Golden Plastic Pvt. Ltd. is a partnership firm which is a separate entity and the partner of the partnership firm is also a Director or partner in M/s Hitech Investment and Casting Limited. She therefore submitted that if there are two different entities, one consumer cannot utilize the power of the another. She also submitted that whether the GIDC has granted approval regarding transfer of plot is not relevant. Learned Advocate Ms. Bhya has strenuously submitted that the permission of the Appellant Company is required. She therefore submitted that if there are two different entities, one consumer cannot utilize the power of the another. She also submitted that whether the GIDC has granted approval regarding transfer of plot is not relevant. Learned Advocate Ms. Bhya has strenuously submitted that the permission of the Appellant Company is required. She also referred to the background and submitted that conveniently the facts have not been stated, and thereafter, though the power is utilized in another adjoining plot amounting to unauthorized use of electricity, the application is made for extension of load on 27.7.2005. Learned Advocate Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya submitted that, further, on visit by the officers on 2.8.2005, such irregularity was noticed leading to the impugned bill, which has been issued for unauthorized use. Learned Advocate Ms. Bhaya submitted that the consumption of the electricity in an adjoining plot is for a different entity and it would be unauthorized, and therefore, the bill has been issued rightly. She submitted that it is not a case of any theft of energy but it is an unauthorized use which is required to be considered. For that purpose she pointedly referred to Section 126 of the Electricity Act and submitted that Section 126 referred to the unauthorized use of electricity. She therefore submitted that though the appellate authority has confirmed that it is a case of unauthorized use of electricity, it would attract Section 126 of the Electricity Act 2003, has passed the order, which is without jurisdiction and authority. Learned Advocate Ms. Bhaya referred to the assessment of the bill produced. She also referred to page 99 which is a inspection report or the checking sheet and submitted that, as stated, it is an unauthorized use of electricity. She pointedly referred to Section 126 (6) and submitted that it provides for: “(6) The assessment under this section shall be made at a rate equal to d [twice] the tariff applicable for the relevant category of services specified in sub-section (5). Learned Advocate Ms. Bhaya also referred to Explanation ‘B’ and submitted that unauthorized use of electricity has been explained and provided, which includes: “(v) for the premises or areas other than those for which the supply of electricity was authorized. 4. Learned Advocate Ms. Learned Advocate Ms. Bhaya also referred to Explanation ‘B’ and submitted that unauthorized use of electricity has been explained and provided, which includes: “(v) for the premises or areas other than those for which the supply of electricity was authorized. 4. Learned Advocate Ms. Bhaya also referred to the averments made in the petition on this count and referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2012 (2) SCC 108 in case of Executive Engineer, Southern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Limited (Southco) and Another v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill has pointedly referred to the observations made therein. Learned Advocate Ms. Bhaya submitted that as observed in this judgment, the objects and reasons are required to be considered. She submitted that the provisions have been considered, and therefore, once it has been accepted that there is an unauthorized use of electricity, the appellate authority could not have set aside or modified the bill of the Petitioner Company. She also referred to the Supply Code and submitted that Clause 7.2 of the Supply Code refers to this aspect, and therefore, the present petition may be allowed. She also referred to the background and submitted that that Civil Application No. 7455 of 2015 was preferred by the Respondent/Applicant for enhancement of the load and the learned Single Judge (Coram: N.V. Anjaria, J.) vide order dated 12.8.2015 passed the order against which Letters Patent Appeal was preferred by the Petitioner Company and the Hon'ble Division Bench has passed the order. She therefore submitted that the present petition may be allowed. 5. Referring to the provisions of the Electricity Act in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, learned Advocate Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya has also referred to the judgment in case of Gujarat Electricity Board v. Ambeshwar Paper Mills Ltd., and pointedly referred to the order passed in Special Civil Application No. 11276 of 2001 as well as in Letters Patent Appeal No. 97 of 2003. Similarly she has also referred to the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 96 of 2014 in case of Dakshin Gujarat Vij. Co. Ltd. v. Shri Vardhaman Salt Works, and submitted that once the unauthorized use of electricity is established, the petitioner is justified. 6. Similarly she has also referred to the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 96 of 2014 in case of Dakshin Gujarat Vij. Co. Ltd. v. Shri Vardhaman Salt Works, and submitted that once the unauthorized use of electricity is established, the petitioner is justified. 6. Learned Advocate Shri S.N. Thakkar for the Respondent referred to the background of the facts and submitted that as stated in chronology of events, the Respondent–Hitech Investment and Casting Limited is the owner of Plot No. 204-A and also 206-A. He submitted that 90% of the share of M/s Golden Plastic is with the Petitioner Company and therefore the submissions regarding the factual background are not properly placed, which needs clarification. For that he referred to the detailed chronology of events as regards the plot as well as checking and submitted that the checking was made on 3.6.2005 with regard to Hitech and the installation of the Hitech was checked and not the consumption of the firm. He submitted that it is not the case that there is any extra consumption or extra load is consumed exceeding the contracted load. He submitted that the sketch which has been referred to would make the position clear that these are all adjoining plots and the Respondent had applied for extension of load and the fact that the Hon'ble High Court in Civil Application No. 7455 of 2015 also accepted the request for extension of load itself would justify that there is no irregularity and it reflects the attitude of the petitioner that L.P.A. was filed challenging such order granting extension of load. He submitted that as a licensee the Petitioner is obliged to provide electricity for the purpose of development and progress of the industry. He also submitted that the petitioner had raised the bill for which the invoice is also there and it is evident that the machines were received in the month of February, and therefore, when there was no such machine, the Respondent could not be saddled with the liability for payment of consumption of electricity charge since February 2005 as the petitioner could not have consumed the electricity for the use of such machinery which was not there at all. He pointedly referred to the papers and submitted that this aspect has been highlighted and considered by the appellate authority-Electrical Officer on scrutiny of the material and evidence, and therefore, such a petition may not be entertained. 7. Learned Advocate Shri S.N. Thakkar has also referred to the papers at length and submitted that the judgments relied upon by the learned Advocate for the petitioner would not have any application. He also referred to the provisions of Section 126(6) of the Electricity Act and submitted that the reliance placed on the Explanation could not be made applicable to the facts of the case of the petitioner, as admittedly, Section 126(6) (iv) and (v) which have been emphasized have been brought by way of amendment w.e.f. 15.6.2007, and therefore, there is no ground for the purpose of considering the unauthorized use of electricity. Therefore there is no ground for such challenge to the order passed by the appellate authority. Learned Advocate Shri Thakkar referred to Section 126 and also Section 126(3) read with Section 123(5) of the Electricity Act. He emphasized that Section 126(3), which provides that reasonable opportunity of hearing is required to be provided before passing the final assessment, which is not followed. He submitted that Section 126 (5) refers to the fact that the conclusion has to be reached that unauthorized use of the electricity has taken place. He submitted that before this procedure has been followed and complied with, the bill could not have been issued in the name of unauthorized use of electricity and, as stated, Section 126(6) Explanation Clause (v) was not there at all and it was brought after the amendment in June 2007. Therefore, learned Advocate Shri Thakkar submitted that it reflects the attitude of the petitioner and there cannot be any rule of thumb though once they believe it as an unauthorized use of electricity, the necessary formula would be applicable for the assessment of the bill for the period of six months without considering the material. He submitted that if the consumer like the Respondent herein discharge the burden then it will have to be considered. Again, learned Advocate Shri Thakkar submitted that for that purpose the necessary bill invoice was produced which would suggest that the machinery was not there in the month of February and therefore he could not be charged for such consumption. He submitted that if the consumer like the Respondent herein discharge the burden then it will have to be considered. Again, learned Advocate Shri Thakkar submitted that for that purpose the necessary bill invoice was produced which would suggest that the machinery was not there in the month of February and therefore he could not be charged for such consumption. However, no speaking order is passed. He pointedly referred to the order and submitted that such an order is passed. He submitted that in fact even the appellate order is not in compliance of rules of natural justice. However, the assessment has been modified could not be a matter of challenge by the petitioner which is a licensee obliged to distribute and supply the electricity to the consumers. 8. Learned Advocate Shri Thakkar submitted that the petitioner is seeking for quashment of the impugned order which would mean that it would revive their assessment order which cannot be sustained. Learned Advocate Shri Thakkar has also referred to the judgment of the High Court reported in 2006 (3) GLR 2252 in case of Mayurkumar Jayendrabhai Patel v. Dy. Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation Department, Rajkot, and emphasized the observations made therein. “Reasons always reflect the mind of the lower authority. “Reasons” is the soul of the order. If the order is without reasons, the appellate authority cannot appreciate the order passed by the lower authority.” 9. Similarly he referred to and relied upon the judgment of the High Court reported in 2003 (1) GLR 506 in case of Thakore K. Patel v. Gujarat Electricity Board, and submitted that where six months could be considered has been discussed observing that it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 10. Learned Advocate Shri Thakkar therefore submitted that blindly one cannot be assessed for six months and such bills cannot be issued without providing any opportunity. He also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2012) 2 SCC 108 in case of Executive Engineer, Southern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Limited (Southco) and Another v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill, and pointedly referred to the observations made therein. He also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2012) 2 SCC 108 in case of Executive Engineer, Southern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Limited (Southco) and Another v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill, and pointedly referred to the observations made therein. Therefore, learned Advocate Shri Thakkar submitted that the reliance placed by the learned Advocate for the petitioner on a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court has to be read in context and background of the facts and it will not have any application to the facts of the case as there is no irregularity or ill-motive by the Respondent herein which would attract any such provision and in fact there is no unauthorized use which may call for the assessment. He submitted that even the appellate authority on examination of material has made and modified the assessment which cannot be questioned by the petitioner. 11. In rejoinder, learned Advocate Ms. Lilu Bhaya referred to the background of the facts at length and submitted that whether the assessment is correct or not, is not the jurisdiction of the authority once it is found that it is an unauthorized use of the electricity. She submitted that it is not however objected initially by the Respondent and therefore such contentions are raised as an afterthought. She also submitted that the petitioner is happy with the order of the appellate authority itself would suggest that there is an unauthorized use of electricity and cannot join an issue with regard to the unauthorized use of the electricity. She also referred to the Supply Code as well as the other judgments referred to herein above and tried to emphasize that when the inspection was carried out and it has been found that there is an unauthorized use of electricity, the supplementary bill has been raised. She submitted that even if the G.I.D.C. may have approved, the fact remains that the consumer–Hightech was provided the connection or the supply for one plot or the premises which could not have been utilized in another plot or the premises and/or for other entity, and therefore, it would amount to unauthorized use of electricity, and therefore, the present petition may be allowed. 12. In view of the rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the present petition deserve consideration. 13. 12. In view of the rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the present petition deserve consideration. 13. As could be seen from the background of the facts, the moot question which is required to be considered is whether it can be said to be an unauthorized use of electricity. The submissions made and recorded herein above clearly suggest that the petitioner had applied and the sketch which has been produced on record at page 68, which has been referred by both the sides, would make the position clear that the petitioner is having the adjoining plot and the application was also made by the petitioner regarding the enhancement or the extension of load. As stated by learned Advocate Shri S.N. Thakkar for the Respondent the consumption has not exceeded than the contracted load. The issue which is sought to be joined is with regard to the concept of power bound extension for the consumption of energy. Even for the purpose of deciding the issue of unauthorized use of the electricity the procedure as provided is required to be followed. Chapter XII refer to Investigation and Enforcement. Section 126 refer to the assessment providing for inspection of a place or the premises for the purpose of verifying whether the person (consumer) has indulged in unauthorized use of electricity. Section 126(1) refer to Inspection and the Assessing Officer is required to come to a conclusion that the person has indulged in unauthorized use of electricity. Thereafter the provisional assessment is made and served upon the occupant of the premises. Again Section 126(5) provide that the Assessing Officer has to reach to the conclusion that unauthorized use of electricity has taken place. This could be done after complying with Section 126(3) which provide for objections against the provisional assessment and also reasonable opportunity of hearing to the person (consumer). The Assessing Officer is required to pass the order of assessment after providing an opportunity of hearing. All this procedure has not been followed. Apart from that, much reliance has been placed on Section 1265(6). Learned Advocate Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya has referred to Section 126(6), Explanation (v) which read: “for the premises or area other than those for which the supply of electricity was authorized.” It refers to the aspect of the power boundary extension and the consumption of the energy which is termed as unauthorized. Learned Advocate Ms. Learned Advocate Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya has referred to Section 126(6), Explanation (v) which read: “for the premises or area other than those for which the supply of electricity was authorized.” It refers to the aspect of the power boundary extension and the consumption of the energy which is termed as unauthorized. Learned Advocate Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya has also referred to this aspect. However, a bare perusal of provisions of Section 126(6), Explanation (b) refer to ‘unauthorized use of electricity’ and it provides: “unauthorized use of electricity” means the usage of electricity” It has reference to Clause (iv) and (v) which have been added subsequently by the Amendment Act of 26 of 2007 (w.e.f. 15.6.2007). Thus, for the purpose of interpreting unauthorized use of electricity which have been explained by specifically providing a different situation or the ground including Section 126(6)(b)(v). The ground 126(6)(b)(v) which has been relied upon by learned Advocate Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya has been subsequently added as stated above and therefore at the relevant time, the ground which does not exist at all. Therefore in spite of the fact that the unauthorized use of electricity was not including ground 126(6)(b)(v) regarding the premises or the areas and the consumption of the energy in an adjoining area or the premises could not be termed as unauthorized use of energy. Therefore, a reference to the unauthorized use of electricity, it is doubtful as to how use of energy can be said to be unauthorized. Admittedly, there is no unauthorized use of electricity inasmuch as the electricity has been supplied as per the contract demand for the same purpose to the same consumer and only on the basis of the concept of power boundary extension, the consumption of energy is labeled as unauthorized. Further, the consumption of energy has not exceeded the contracted demand. Therefore the concept of power boundary extension is something which has been without any justification and if the energy provided to one consumer in his premises is diverted to another premises to another consumer or for a different purpose, it may lead to unauthorized consumption or the use of the energy. Therefore the concept of power boundary extension is something which has been without any justification and if the energy provided to one consumer in his premises is diverted to another premises to another consumer or for a different purpose, it may lead to unauthorized consumption or the use of the energy. If the same consumer utilizing in an adjoining plot which also belong to him as per the record and the permission of the G.I.D.C. and particularly when he has also made an application also to the Petitioner Company on the basis of which he desire to have the connection in adjoining plot, it could not be termed as unauthorized use of energy. Moreover, when the ground as stated above is not included for the unauthorized use of energy, there is no justification to add any such ground for the purpose of billing or the supplementary bill. 14. It is required to be stated that again even for the assessment for unauthorized use of energy there is no rule of thumb that the assessment could be made for six months when the statute provides specifically that it can be resorted to where the energy or the electricity which has been used cannot be ascertained. In the facts of the case, the Respondent has with details justified that the machines which were brought were only placed in the adjoining premises and the invoice for the purpose are from February, it cannot be said that there was a consumption of energy to run such machines which have been even bought subsequently. Therefore, when the impugned order is passed in Appeal No. 37 of 2005 by the appellate authority (Inspector, Bhavnagar) produced at Annexure-C after considering the relevant material and the rival claims cannot be said to be erroneous or without jurisdiction as sought to be canvassed. 15. Therefore, the moot question is whether this court in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 would be justified to disturb the order passed by the appellate authority in Appeal No. 37 of 2005 dated 12.5.2006 in exercise of the statutory power under the Electricity Act under the concept of judicial review. 15. Therefore, the moot question is whether this court in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 would be justified to disturb the order passed by the appellate authority in Appeal No. 37 of 2005 dated 12.5.2006 in exercise of the statutory power under the Electricity Act under the concept of judicial review. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment in case of State of U.P. v. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh, reported in (1989) 2 SCC 505 : AIR 1989 SC 997 has observed: “However, judicial review under Article 226 cannot be converted into an appeal. Judicial review is directed, not against the decision, but is confined to the examination of the decision-making process. Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans 1982 (1) WLR 1155 refers to the merits-legality distinction in judicial review. Lord Hailsham said: ‘The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment, and not to ensure that the authority, after according fair treatment, reaches on a matter which it is authorized by law to decide for itself a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the court.’ Lord Brightman observed: ‘...Judicial review, as the words imply, is not an appeal from a decision, but a review of the manner in which the decision was made’....” Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment in case of Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra reported in 1999 (1) SCC 759 has observed:" “Judicial review, not being an appeal from a decision, but a review of the manner in which the decision was arrived at, the court, while exercising the power of judicial review, must remain conscious of the fact that if the decision has been arrived at by the administrative authority after following the principles established by law and the rules of natural justice and the individual has received a fair treatment to meet the case against him, the court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the administrative authority on a matter which fell squarely within the sphere of jurisdiction of that authority.” Moreover, as observed and it has been a settled law that the High Court would normally not interfere in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 when the statutory remedy is provided and the authority has considered based on material and evidence. Therefore, the scope of exercise of discretion in such cases would be limited and would not disturb the findings and conclusion of the appellate authority unless it can be said to be perverse and/or without jurisdiction and authority. 16. The appellate authority has considered in detail the rival submissions and as discussed with the reasons recorded therein has only modified the assessment which cannot be said to be erroneous which would call for any interference in exercise of discretion under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. 17. The Petitioner Company is a licensee or a Distribution Company under the Electricity Act. The Indian Electricity Act has created a basic framework for the electricity supply. Thereafter, considering the growth of electricity industry or the power sector a framework was sought to be created locally for which the provisions have been made like Electricity (Supply) Act 1948. This lead to the creation of the electricity board and thereafter the licensee like the Petitioner Company on bifurcation of such Boards. The State Electricity Regulatory Commission has been set up to address such issues and there is a statutory appeal provided in the Electricity Act itself for addressing the grievance made by the consumers. Therefore, the Petitioner Company which is functioning as a public utility and a licensee discharging the function with regard to the distribution of electricity to the consumer could not have such a narrow and highhanded attitude. The emphasis is made by learned Advocate about the word ‘Premises’ which include any land, building or structure. Thus, ‘premises’ would mean only a building or a structure in which the supply is given. It is required to be noted that the consumer is a person to whom the supply is made and it is the consumer in whose premises supply has been made and the consumer would be liable for the payment of the charges or the energy consumed. It is required to be noted that the consumer is a person to whom the supply is made and it is the consumer in whose premises supply has been made and the consumer would be liable for the payment of the charges or the energy consumed. Therefore, on one hand, when there is a case for the progressive state with stress on the development with the availability of the essential energy like electricity and when there is a scheme or the attempt by the State to invite and attract the industries, such narrow and negative attitude would be counterproductive that a person who desires to have electricity in an adjoining plot of land is dealt with in the manner as if it is a case of unauthorized use of electricity. Even if there is some procedure for seeking permission for such extension or the supply of energy in an adjoining premises or the plot where the same consumer desires to have his connection it could be a matter of some mechanism by which the licensee could provide. In fact the Respondent had applied for such permission and it is pursuant to such efforts the officers of the Petitioner Company had visited. 18. The reliance placed by learned Advocate Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Executive Engineer, Southern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Limited (Southco) v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill (supra) with much emphasis with regard to the unauthorized use of electricity is out of context with the facts of the case. The Hon'ble Apex Court has referred to the aspect of unauthorized use referring to Section 126 and also the statutory provisions which include Section 127 of the Electricity Act referring to the powers of the appellate authority. Therefore, though learned Advocate Ms. Bhaya has referred at length this judgment with reference to the objects or reasons or the underlying purpose has failed to consider the relevant observations made in paragraph 82 to 87. It has been observed in this very judgment: “53. It is a settled canon of law that the High Court would not normally interfere in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India where statutory alternative remedy is available. It is equally settled that this canon of law is not free of exceptions. It has been observed in this very judgment: “53. It is a settled canon of law that the High Court would not normally interfere in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India where statutory alternative remedy is available. It is equally settled that this canon of law is not free of exceptions. The courts, including this Court, have taken the view that the statutory remedy, if provided under a specific law, would impliedly oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts. The High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can entertain writ or appropriate proceedings despite availability of an alternative remedy. This jurisdiction, the High Court would exercise with some circumspection in exceptional cases, particularly, where the cases involve a pure question of law or vires of an Act are challenged. This class of cases we are mentioning by way of illustration and should not be understood to be an exhaustive exposition of law which, in our opinion, is neither practical nor possible to state with precision. The availability of alternative statutory or other remedy by itself may not operate as an absolute bar for exercise of jurisdiction by the Courts. It will normally depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given case.” It is further observed: “We are of the considered view that interest of administration of justice shall be better sub-served if the cases of the present kind are heard by the courts only where it involves primary questions of jurisdiction or the matters which goes to the very root of jurisdiction and where the authorities have acted beyond the provisions of the Act. However, it should only be for the specialized Tribunal or the appellate authorities to examine the merits of assessment or even factual matrix of the case.” 19. It is well settled that the pronouncement/judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court would constitute the precedent in respect of an issue decided by it on principle. The order passed by the appellate authority in exercise of the statutory powers are questioned by the present petitioner which is a licensee or a distribution company under the Electricity Act and also a public utility. Therefore, the attitude and conduct of the Petitioner-Company as a licensee having a monopoly which is abused under some misconception. 20. The order passed by the appellate authority in exercise of the statutory powers are questioned by the present petitioner which is a licensee or a distribution company under the Electricity Act and also a public utility. Therefore, the attitude and conduct of the Petitioner-Company as a licensee having a monopoly which is abused under some misconception. 20. In fact the appellate authority would be more conversant with the technical aspect and the Petitioner–Distribution Company or the licensee could not have challenged such orders wasting the resources or the public money in the litigation. A judicial notice could be taken of the fact that the licensee or the Distribution Company like the present Petitioner Company have been wasting the public money in litigation without any justification. The present petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.