JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J —Having heard this matter, at length, we are satisfied that the demand of Rs. 55, 73, 25, 952/- has been raised by the 1st respondent against the petitioner, without seeking adjudication of its claims, in accordance with order dated 10.03.2017 (Annexure P-4) , passed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, New Delhi, (for short ''the Central Commission'') , in Petitions No. 449/MP/2014 and 167/MP/2015. 2. As a matter of fact, while considering the claims and counter-claims, as laid by the petitioner and the 1st respondent before the learned Central Commission, the same was ordered to be adjudicated as follows. "64 In the light of the above discussion, the prayers of MPCL in Petition No. 449/MP/2014 are disposed of as under:- (a) As regards the first prayer seeking a declaration that the Agreements dated 24.08.2011, 22.2.2012, 20.3.2013 and 29.3.2014 are void, it is directed that the provisions of the said agreements in so far as they are inconsistent with the Open Access Regulations, 2008 read with the UI Regulations, 2009 and DSM Regulations, 2014 shall be inoperative. HPSEBL is directed to work out the UI charges afresh in terms of the above mentioned regulations. (b) MPCL has sought a direction to HPSEBL to refund the excess UI charges and handling charges alongwith interest at the rate of 18%. We direct that the difference between UI charges collected with effect from 1.4.2008 as per the letter dated 20.4.2009 and Agreements dated 24.08.2011, 22.2.2012, 20.03.2013, 29.3.2014 or any subsequent agreement and the UI/DSM charges calculated as per the Open Access Regulations, 2008 read with the UI Regulations, 2009/DSM regulations, 2014 shall be refunded or adjusted by HPSEBL in a period of three months from the date of issue of this order. However, the interest is not allowed. (c) MPCL has sought a direction to HPSEBL to discontinue the collection of handling charges. It is directed that HPSEBL is not entitled for handling charges as it is getting the operating charges reimbursed through NRLDC and Power Exchanges. HPSEBL is directed to refund the handling charges collected from MPCL from 1.4.2008 till the issue of this order. MPCL shall be entitled for a simple interest of 9%. (d) MPCL has sought a direction to HPSEBL and Himachal Pradesh Load Despatch Society to follow the regulations framed by this Commission while dealing with interstate power. HPSEBL is directed to refund the handling charges collected from MPCL from 1.4.2008 till the issue of this order. MPCL shall be entitled for a simple interest of 9%. (d) MPCL has sought a direction to HPSEBL and Himachal Pradesh Load Despatch Society to follow the regulations framed by this Commission while dealing with interstate power. In the light of the directions given in (a) to (c) above, no further directions are required to be issued in this regard. Both MPCL and HPSEBL have sorted out the problem with regard to NOC for short term open access and therefore, no direction is required to be issued in this regard. (e) MPCL has sought a direction to allow scheduling/meeting of power of MPCL by NRLDC. This prayer has been made without any supporting pleadings. Therefore, no direction is issued on this prayer. 65. The prayers of HPSEBL in Petition No. 167/MP/2015 are disposed of as under:- (a) HPSEBL had prayed that if the Open Access Regulations and UI Regulations of the Commission are to apply, the same would be applicable in entirety and for all aspects between the parties. We have already directed that the Open Access Regulations, 2008 shall apply in all aspects including the wheeling charges/losses and handling charges. (b) There is dispute between the parties as to whether the transmission charges and losses determined by HPERC shall be applicable in case of the wheeling charges and losses payable by MPCL for using State network. Since the wheeling charges and losses pertaining to State network fall under the jurisdiction of HPERC, we direct the parties to approach the learned HPERC for suitable directions in this regard. Till the matter is decided by the HPERC, the default transmission charges and losses as per the Open Access Regulations, 2008 shall be payable. Accordingly, wheeling charges and losses shall be worked out by MPCL and HPSEBL. (c) HPSEBL has sought a direction to MPCL to pay the difference between the amounts already paid and to be paid in line with the charges and losses mentioned as per Annexure A & B to the affidavit dated 27.4.2015. It is directed that the difference between the transmission charges and losses paid by MPCL and the transmission charges and losses worked out based on the decision of HPERC shall be payable as arrears in three installments by MPCL to HPSEBL." 3. It is directed that the difference between the transmission charges and losses paid by MPCL and the transmission charges and losses worked out based on the decision of HPERC shall be payable as arrears in three installments by MPCL to HPSEBL." 3. We are not concerned in this petition with respect to the identification of the claims in favour of the petitioner-Company in para 64 of the order, Annexure P-4, having been not assailed any further by the 1st respondent. The demand, now, i.e. Rs. 55, 73, 25, 952/- pertains to the adjudication in said para 65(b) of the order, on account of transmission and wheeling charges, allegedly payable by the petitioner to the 1st respondent. 4. As a matter of fact, the learned Central Commission had left this part of the claim of the 1st respondent to be adjudicated upon by the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission and payable thereafter to the 1st respondent. In the interregnum, the payment of default transmission charges and losses were left open to be paid by the petitioner-Company to the 1st respondent, as per the Open Access Regulations, 2008. Admittedly, the parties have not yet approached the said respondent for adjudication of such claims in terms of the order passed by the learned Central Commission. The clarification (Annexure R-2/10) , dated 3rd April, 2017, given by the 3rd respondent to the 1st respondent is not an adjudication in terms of the order ibid (Annexure P-4) . 5. Therefore, leaving all legal questions raised in this petition open to be decided at appropriate stage by appropriate Forums/Courts, the writ petition, is disposed of with a direction to either of the parties to approach the 2nd respondent for adjudication of the claims in Para 65 (b) of the order (AnnexureP-4) , within two weeks. The 2nd respondent shall thereafter decide the matter within three months, of course, on rendering all co-operation by the parties on both sides and after affording to them due opportunity of being heard. 6. The demand raised i.e. Rs. 55, 73, 25, 952/-, as per Annexure P-6, shall be subject to the final outcome of the adjudication by the 2nd respondent. 7. As regards Rs. 6. The demand raised i.e. Rs. 55, 73, 25, 952/-, as per Annexure P-6, shall be subject to the final outcome of the adjudication by the 2nd respondent. 7. As regards Rs. 10.00 crores deposited by the petitioner-Company in the Registry of this Court in terms of the interim order dated 1st January, 2018, there shall be a direction to the Registry to invest the same in Fixed Deposit, initially for a period of one year. The release of this amount shall also be subject to the outcome of the final adjudication by the 2nd respondent. 8. The liberty is granted to the parties, on either side, to approach this Court, for release of this amount, if so, advised. 9. Pending application(s) , if any, shall also stand disposed of.