JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner company is aggrieved with the impugned letter dated 12-07-2022, whereby the respondent corporation has made a demand for settlement of outstanding dues amounting to Rs. 51,00,10,940.45 (Rupees fifty-one crores, ten thousand, nine hundred and forty) only, to be made within 15 days from the date of issuance of the impugned letter. 2. The main contention of the writ petitioner is that the impugned letter had been issued in complete disregard to the fact that a case being No.1 of 2022 is pending before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF) wherein a committee has been constituted to resolve the issues between the parties. 3. The respondent corporation, has resisted the writ petition by countering that the decision to issue disconnection notice and demand clearance of the entire outstanding amount is fully justified under the provisions of the Meghalaya Electricity Supply Code, 2018, whereunder it is obligatory for the party to make the entire deposit before disputing the dues. It is also contended by the respondent corporation, that the constitution of a committee to look into the grievance of the petitioner has no bearing on the right of the respondent corporation to disconnect the electricity of the petitioner and further, that the petitioner is before this Court on a third successive non-maintainable petition on the same/similar cause of action. 4. In the course of hearing the matter, and on the query of the Court as to the status of the proceedings before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, the minutes of the last meeting dated 18-07-2022, have been produced by learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the said minutes reflects that the same has not progressed due to the fact that the writ petitioner against the said notice dated 12-07-2022, has approached this Court. For the sake of convenience, the minutes of the meeting are reproduced herein below: 'Minutes of the Meeting The matter is posted today the 18-07-2022 for submission of proposal to workout a workable plan to settle the matter arising between MePDCL and Shri Sai Prakash Alloys. However, no proposal whatsoever, has been submitted today on the ground that pending settlement/adjudication of the matter before the Hon'ble forum, the MePDCL has issued a demand-cum-disconnection notice against the total outstanding Electricity Bills amount and calling upon the applicant to clear the outstanding dues within 15 days from the date of issue of the said notice. However, no proposal whatsoever, has been submitted today on the ground that pending settlement/adjudication of the matter before the Hon'ble forum, the MePDCL has issued a demand-cum-disconnection notice against the total outstanding Electricity Bills amount and calling upon the applicant to clear the outstanding dues within 15 days from the date of issue of the said notice. In this regard, the representative of Shri Sai Prakash Alloys Pvt. has prayed for relief/injunction by staying the said notice dated 12-7-2022 during the pendency of the case No. 1 of 2022 before the forum. The representative of MePDCL has informed that since there is no stay order or injunction whatsoever, hence the Corporation is at liberty to initiate disconnection. Further, it has also been informed that Shri Sai Prakash Alloy Pvt. Ltd., has already approached the Hon'ble High Court in this connection and the matter is likely to be taken up on 19-7-2022. In view of the above, on perusal of the records placed before the Subcommittee of the CGRF, it is to be noted that the Subcommittee is not the authority to deal with the issue of disconnection.' 5. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, though a new situation has arisen, this Court cannot deviate from the orders passed in the earlier writ petitions between the same parties wherein, in WP(C). No. 152 of 2022 particularly, this Court had observed by order dated 10-06-2022, at para 9 and 10 as follows: '9. Having heard the parties and considered the matter in its totality, it is necessary to note herein that this writ petition was entertained by this Court only on the consideration that public revenue was involved though the matter was purely a commercial transaction between two parties. The proceedings that have since taken place in the course of two writ applications and the failure of the parties to arrive at any understanding, illustrate the fact that no further useful purpose will be achieved by keeping the matter pending before this Court. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition for the reasons aforementioned stands dismissed, and the respondent corporation are at liberty to take any further action in accordance with law for realisation of current and outstanding dues.' 6. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition for the reasons aforementioned stands dismissed, and the respondent corporation are at liberty to take any further action in accordance with law for realisation of current and outstanding dues.' 6. However, the only limited consideration in the opinion of this Court that can be afforded to the petitioner, is the fact that the matter is yet to reach finality before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, and that the same has been stalled due to the instant proceedings. In this view therefore, for the ends of justice, it is directed that the respondent corporation shall not give effect to the impugned letter pending the conclusion of the proceedings before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, which is given ten days' time from today, to conclude the same. It is made clear that on the expiry of ten days, notwithstanding the fact that the matter may not yet be concluded for whatever reason before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, the respondent corporation will be at liberty to take any further action in accordance with law. 7. This writ petition on the directions above mentioned is accordingly disposed of.