ORDER : The petitioner-N.T. Sagar S/o. Sadanand and his wife Ms. Usha Sagar have approached this Court by these Writ Petitions filed on 2.3.2014 aggrieved by the impugned endorsement Annexure-L dated 17.1.2014 asking petitioner no.1 to pay the outstanding arrears of amount of Rs.12,03,917/-in respect of installation no. RR No. NI P895 since the year 1998 to the respondent-BESCOM. 2. The memorandum of objections were filed by the petitioner vide Annexure-D dated 5.10.1998 with regard to the said installation of the petitioner was for his Industry before the respondent-Asst. Executive Engineer (Electrical) and was replied by the Asst. Executive Engineer (Electrical) vide Annexure-E dated 12.9.2001 asking the petitioner to pay arrears to the extent of Rs.10,44,503/-, fixed charges of Rs.35,588/-and interest of Rs.6,49,564/totaling to Rs.17,29,655/-. 3. This communication vide Annexure-E dated 12.9.2001 remained uncomplied with nor any further appeal or revision on the part of the petitioner was preferred. Of course, a Criminal case was filed against the petitioner for alleged electricity theft but, it was ended in an acquittal by a competent Court vide order at Annexure-F dated 22.11.2003 in Case No. Special CC No.350/2002 in the case For State, KPTCL, Vigilance Police Station, Bengaluru City vs. N.T. Sagar & another but, that has nothing to do with the liability of the petitioner for paying the aforesaid arrears. The petitioner does not appear to have taken any action for impugning the communication vide Annexure-E dated 12.9.2001 for all these years i.e. about 12 to 13 years. 4. After 13 years or so, when the impugned communication at Annexure-G dated 10.8.2013 was issued to the petitioner, the petitioner suddenly approached this Court by way of this writ petition along with his wife joined as petitioner no.2. 5. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, the respondent-Asst. Executive Engineer has illegally threatened to recover these arrears from the separate Electrical installation vide RR No.W3 EH 2666 37 (54A) in the name of his wife petitioner no.2 Smt. Usha Sagar, which, the respondent-BESCOM cannot do, in view of General Condition No.4.09(v) of Conditions of Supply of Electricity of Distribution Licensees in The State of Karnataka, which is quoted below for ready reference. “ConditionNo.4.09(v): (v) Arrears in any particular installation, which is under disconnection for nonpayment, shall be collected as arrears of any other installation except residential installation standing in the name of the same Consumer. “ConditionNo.4.09(v): (v) Arrears in any particular installation, which is under disconnection for nonpayment, shall be collected as arrears of any other installation except residential installation standing in the name of the same Consumer. However arrear so fany other installation shall not be included to a residential installation. Further the Licensee shall issue a separate notice clearly explaining the circumstances before recovery is pursued by claiming the arrears of any installation as arrears of another installation of the same Consumer.” 6. Learned counsel for respondent-BESCOM Mr. G.C. Shanmukha brought to the notice of the Court that, in the earlier Writ Petition filed by the petitioner, while disposing of WP Nos.27343/98 N.T. Sagar vs. Secretary, KEB and another wherein, the learned Single Judge, by order dated 25.09.1998 vide Annexure-B at para.9 directed, “if for any reason, petitioner wants the restoration of electricity energy to the petitioner’s electrical installation, he shall deposit a sum of Rs.4,00,000/with the local officer of the respondent-Board subject to the final order that would be made by the local officer of the respondentBoard.” 7. A Writ Appeal was also preferred by the petitioner in Writ Appeal No.544/99 (N.T.SAGAR vs. Secretary KEB) which came to be dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.3.1999 vide Annexure-C. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the said amount of Rs.4,00,000/-was never deposited by the petitioner. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is satisfied that the present writ petition is wholly misconceived and deserves to be dismissed with costs. 10. The petitioner no.1 not only very well knew about the arrears of the respondent-BESCOM against the electrical installation on the alleged ground of theft of electricity which were duly communicated to him at last vide Annexure-E dated 12.9.2001 to the extent of Rs.17,29,655/-. Admittedly, thereafter the petitioner did not take any legal remedy or action for seeking annulment or quashing of the said demand and thus rendering his liability as an admitted liability or dues to be paid to the respondent-BESCOM. Merely because the said demand is reiterated and sought to be recovered after long gap of 13 years by the respondent-BESCOM vide Annexure-L dated 17.1.2014, it does not render the said demand per se illegal or non-recoverable. 11. Annexure-L communication dated 17.1.2014 is addressed to petitioner no.1 – N.T. Sagar only. Merely because the said demand is reiterated and sought to be recovered after long gap of 13 years by the respondent-BESCOM vide Annexure-L dated 17.1.2014, it does not render the said demand per se illegal or non-recoverable. 11. Annexure-L communication dated 17.1.2014 is addressed to petitioner no.1 – N.T. Sagar only. There is nothing on record to indicate that the said demand against petitioner no.1 was rendered illegal or in fructuous which cannot be recovered from petitioner no.1. As far as the threatened recovery from the installation of residential accommodation in the name of petitioner no.2 wife is concerned, this joint writ petition by both of them cannot be maintained. 12. There is no violation of condition no.4.09 (v) as alleged. The petitioner cannot seek any relief and the same cannot also be granted, when he is not diligent and punctual in paying any of his arrears under the shield of the residential installation in the name of his wife taking the support of Condition No.4.09 (v) quoted above. The public dues cannot be allowed to be defeated through such dubious methods. 13. The petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and there is no explanation given from the side of the petitioner for nonpayment of arrears and also for such a huge delay of 12 to 13 years in keeping silent of nonpayment of the arrears to the extent of 17 lakhs and odd. 14. There is no explanation also from either side as to how the said payment of 17 lakhs got reduced to 12.03 lakhs only. It could be either on account of waiver of interest or for some other reasons but, there is no factual connect between these two demands. 15. In any case, this Court is satisfied that the present petition does not require any interference by this Court, more so, when the petitioner has not even complied with the directions of this Court in the earlier round of litigation by payment of Rs.4 lakhs against the said demand and ask for the final determination of the disputed liability. Such a petition cannot be entertained in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitions therefore, deserve to be dismissed with costs which are quantified at Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent-BESCOM.