ORDER : Nagesh Bheemapaka, J. Petitioner is stated to be a company which entered into an agreement dated 30.04.2018 with the respondent distribution licensee for supply of electricity under HT-II category, bearing HT Service Connection No. BKM-130, with a contracted maximum demand of 750 KVA at Oddu Ramavaram Village, Mulakalapally Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. The said supply was granted for establishing and operating a site office and factory at the said location. From the date of release of service connection, petitioner has been regularly paying all monthly power consumption bills without any default. 1.1. While so, respondents, without observing the principles of natural justice, unilaterally changed the category of petitioner's service connection from HT-II to HT-VII and retrospectively assessed consumption charges from the very date of release of supply, i.e. 30.04.2018. By proceedings dated 25.06.2019 of the 4 th respondent and consequential power consumption bill dated 26.07.2019 issued by the 6th respondent, back billing demand of Rs.34,61,400/- was raised against petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, they filed Writ Petition No. 17803 of 2019 and this Court by order dated 20.08.2019, granted interim suspension of operation of the impugned back billing demand, subject to petitioner depositing one-third of the demanded amount within the stipulated time. Petitioner strictly complied with the said interim order and deposited Rs.15,87,772/- in two instalments on 11.09.2019, representing one-third of the demanded amount. The said interim order continues to be in force and Writ Petition is still pending adjudication. 1.2. It is further contended that subsequently, by letter dated 01.07.2020, respondents themselves revised the earlier back billing assessment of Rs.34,61,400/-and enhanced the same to Rs.47,63,316/-, stating that the earlier calculation was incorrect. Even in respect of the revised demand, petitioner complied with the interim directions of this Court and paid one- third of the revised amount, aggregating to Rs.15,87,772/-, by making payments of Rs. 11,53,800/- and Rs.4,33,972/-; thus, it is asserted that petitioner has scrupulously adhered to all interim directions of this Court. Except for the disputed back billing amounts, which are the subject matter of Writ Petition No.17803 of 2019, petitioner has paid all the regular monthly consumption charges raised by respondents without any arrears. 11,53,800/- and Rs.4,33,972/-; thus, it is asserted that petitioner has scrupulously adhered to all interim directions of this Court. Except for the disputed back billing amounts, which are the subject matter of Writ Petition No.17803 of 2019, petitioner has paid all the regular monthly consumption charges raised by respondents without any arrears. 1.3 Petitioner further contends that as the project activities were nearing completion and the contracted maximum demand of 750 KVA was no longer required, it addressed representation dated 11.06.2022 to the 2 nd respondent seeking deration or reduction of contracted maximum demand from 750 KVA to 300 KVA in respect of HT Service Connection No. BKM- 130. They were not utilising even 50% of the sanctioned demand, as most of the project work had already been completed. Despite repeated representations addressed to Respondents 2 and 3, no favourable action was taken; instead, by letter dated 27.08.2020, the 2 nd respondent rejected the request for deration solely on the ground of pendency of arrears arising out of the disputed back billing, and directed petitioner to clear the said arrears. Petitioner asserts that it was compelled to pay excessive monthly charges of about Rs.2,25,000/- towards the unused surplus load of 450 KVA, even though the actual utilisation never exceeded 300 KVA. According to petitioner, denial of deration was not based on any valid or legal reason, but was a punitive measure adopted by respondents solely because they approached this Court and obtained interim protection against illegal back billing. 1.4. It is further pleaded that all construction and allied activities at the site were completed by March, 2021 and that regular 220/11 KV power supply to the pump house was charged by the end of June, 2024. In these circumstances, petitioner addressed letter dated 29.06.2024 to the 2 nd respondent seeking cancellation of HT service connection and dismantling of HT SC No. BKM-130 at Sita Rama Lift Irrigation Project, Package-5, Oddu Ramavaram Village, as the service was no longer required. When there was no response, another letter dated 27.08.2024 was addressed, reiterating the request for disconnection and dismantling and expressly undertaking to bear the expenditure involved in dismantling the service connection. 1.5. It is stated, despite these repeated requests, respondents did not take steps to dismantle the service connection. When there was no response, another letter dated 27.08.2024 was addressed, reiterating the request for disconnection and dismantling and expressly undertaking to bear the expenditure involved in dismantling the service connection. 1.5. It is stated, despite these repeated requests, respondents did not take steps to dismantle the service connection. The service was admittedly disconnected on 30.08.2024; however, 33 KV sub-station constructed in the land belonging to farmers continued to remain in place. Consequently, petitioner addressed yet another letter dated 26.10.2024 to the 2nd respondent. In response thereto, the impugned proceedings dated 06.11.2024, along with back bill statement dated 01.09.2024 was issued. Though respondents admitted in the impugned proceedings that service connection was disconnected on 30.08.2024, they directed petitioner to pay or deposit a sum of Rs.43,84,907.50/-, inclusive of interest up to 06.11.2024, as a pre-condition for dismantling 33 KV sub- station which is directly traceable to the very back billing proceedings which are under suspension by virtue of the interim order dated 20.08.2019 in Writ Petition No.17803 of 2019. According to petitioner, this action of respondents amounts to wilful disobedience of the interim order of this Court. 1.6. Petitioner also alleges discrimination and arbitrariness inasmuch as, in respect of other service connections of petitioner with the respondent company, respondents granted relief of disconnection, deration of load and dismantling even when back billing disputes were pending. In the present case alone, such relief is denied without any justifiable reason, solely to coerce petitioner into paying amounts which are under judicial scrutiny. Once petitioner sought cancellation and dismantling of service connection, the 2 nd respondent has no authority either under the Agreement dated 30.04.2018, the Electricity Act, 2003 or the applicable rules and regulations to extend the agreement or compel the petitioner to continue the HT service connection. The right of petitioner to seek cancellation and dismantling flows from the agreement itself, and there is no provision enabling the respondents to deny dismantling after completion of work and termination of contract, especially when the alleged arrears are stayed by this Court. It is finally pleaded that Agreement between petitioner and respondents was only for one year from 30.04.2018, and in terms of Condition No.7 thereof, petitioner has terminated the Agreement. Upon such termination, the obligation of respondents is to dismantle the service connection, and the latter cannot compel petitioner to continue to bear charges towards contracted maximum demand and minimum charges. 2. Upon such termination, the obligation of respondents is to dismantle the service connection, and the latter cannot compel petitioner to continue to bear charges towards contracted maximum demand and minimum charges. 2. By order dated 05.12.2024, this Court granted interim direction in favour of petitioners. 3. A detailed counter was filed by the 6 th respondent stating that petitioner company obtained electricity supply by entering into an Agreement dated 30.04.2018 specifically for the purpose of construction activities, namely construction of Pumping Station No.2 at Sita Rama Lift Irrigation Project, Package No.5. The power supply was sanctioned for a contracted maximum demand of 750 KVA under HT Category-II, subject to the express condition that the petitioner would abide by the General Terms and Conditions of Supply and the tariff orders issued by the Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Commission from time to time. It is contended, one of the binding conditions under the General Terms and Conditions of Supply is Clause 5.9.4.2, which governs deration of contracted maximum demand and termination of HT agreements. The said Clause specifically stipulates that a consumer may seek reduction of contracted maximum demand or termination of the HT agreement only after expiry of the minimum period of one year by giving not less than one month's notice, and that upon termination of HT Agreement, the consumer is liable to pay all sums due under the Agreement as on the date of termination. It is further stated that the company is also empowered to terminate the Agreement in the event of violation of terms of the HT agreement, General Terms and Conditions of Supply or the applicable statutory provisions, including the Electricity Act, 2003 and the AP Electricity Reforms Act, 1998. 3.1. It is asserted, petitioner is a construction company and had applied for electricity connection specifically for construction purposes. The supply was therefore, in the nature of temporary supply. The power supply was sanctioned under HT Category-II initially as per the prevailing tariff for the financial year 2018-2019, and the demand for such temporary supply was raised from the date of release of supply, i.e., 30.04.2018 to 07.06.2019. A demand notice in this regard was issued on 10.08.2019. The supply was therefore, in the nature of temporary supply. The power supply was sanctioned under HT Category-II initially as per the prevailing tariff for the financial year 2018-2019, and the demand for such temporary supply was raised from the date of release of supply, i.e., 30.04.2018 to 07.06.2019. A demand notice in this regard was issued on 10.08.2019. Under the Agreement, particularly under Conditions 8 and 9 thereof, petitioner expressly agreed to pay maximum demand charges, energy charges, surcharges, meter rents and other charges in accordance with the tariffs applicable and the General Terms and Conditions of Supply prescribed by the company from time to time. Petitioner also agreed that the company has unilateral authority to vary tariffs, scales of charges and the General Terms and Conditions of Supply by special or general proceedings, and to enhance the rates chargeable for supply of electricity as per exigencies. 3.2. Respondents further submit that Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Commission, on the proposal of the distribution licensees, introduced a separate tariff rate for consumers availing temporary supply under HT voltage for the financial year 2018-2019. According to respondents, petitioner itself requested power supply for construction activity, and therefore, the applicable tariff for temporary supply was liable to be applied. The Divisional Engineer/DPE, Bhadradri Kothagudem, inspected petitioner's service connection bearing SC No. BKM-130 on 07.06.2019 and noticed that they were utilising electricity for construction purposes, including construction of canal tunnel works relating to Sita Rama Lift Irrigation Project. Based on the said inspection, it was proposed to convert the service category from HT Category-II to HT Category-VII, in accordance with the tariff order dated 27.03.2018 issued by the Regulatory Commission for the financial year 2018-2019. 3.3. Pursuant to the inspection, billing under HT Category-VII was proposed instead of HT Category-II for the period from the date of release of supply, i.e. 30.04.2018 to 07.06.2019, and an amount of Rs.34,61,400/- was assessed vide proceedings dated 11.06.2019; the said amount was lawfully payable by petitioner in terms of the tariff order dated 27.03.2018 and Conditions 8 and 9 of the Agreement. As per CGRF instructions, a suitable reply was submitted and a copy was also communicated to petitioner. The same procedure of reclassification and back billing was uniformly adopted for all HT services throughout the State in terms of Clause 2.22 of the tariff order dated 27.03.2018 for the financial year 2018-19. As per CGRF instructions, a suitable reply was submitted and a copy was also communicated to petitioner. The same procedure of reclassification and back billing was uniformly adopted for all HT services throughout the State in terms of Clause 2.22 of the tariff order dated 27.03.2018 for the financial year 2018-19. It is asserted that Rs.34,61,400/- was calculated strictly on the basis of inspection and on the statement of petitioner's representative admitting that power was being used for construction purposes. Accordingly, revision of consumption charges with effect from the date of release of supply till 07.06.2019 was justified. 3.4. Respondents further state that the category of petitioner's service was proposed strictly based on the inspection report of DPE/ADE/OP and that notice of assessment for the relevant period was issued after due inspection and after recording the statement of the representative of petitioner company, who admitted that the power supply was being used for construction purposes. Respondents admit that petitioner filed Writ Petition No.17803 of 2019 challenging the change of category wherein this Court granted an interim order suspending the demand subject to deposit of one-third of the amount. However, it is contended that the said Writ Petition does not involve any issue relating to disconnection or dismantling of power supply. According to respondents, petitioner is now seeking permanent dismantling of service connection without final adjudication of the earlier demand, which is impermissible. 3.5. It is further contended that in Writ Petition No.17803 of 2019, a counter affidavit and vacate stay petition were filed as early as on 04.09.2020, but petitioner has neither filed reply nor made any effort to get the said writ petition disposed of. Petitioner, being a construction company and a temporary consumer, would leave the site upon completion of construction, and if service connection and sub-station are dismantled at this stage, respondents would be left without any effective means to recover the legally demanded amounts which are the subject matter of the above Writ Petition. 3.6. Considering petitioner's request for dismantling and the above circumstances, the 2 nd respondent calculated the total dues payable as Rs.67,61,317/-, and after deducting the security deposit of Rs.25,08,840/-, issued the impugned proceedings dated 06.11.2024 calling upon petitioner to pay Rs.43,84,907,50/-. 3.6. Considering petitioner's request for dismantling and the above circumstances, the 2 nd respondent calculated the total dues payable as Rs.67,61,317/-, and after deducting the security deposit of Rs.25,08,840/-, issued the impugned proceedings dated 06.11.2024 calling upon petitioner to pay Rs.43,84,907,50/-. It is contended that petitioner's request for deration of load was rightly rejected by proceedings dated 27.08.2020, clearly stating that unless the outstanding arrears of about Rs.36.90 lakhs were cleared, the request for deration could not be considered. 3.7. Respondents further contend that petitioner requested permanent dismantling of service on 05.11.2024 after completion of the project and without clearing substantial arrears of Rs.67,61,317/-, after adjusting the security deposit. The procedure adopted by them is scrupulously in accordance with law and that even in the case of domestic (LT-I) connections, dismantling is permitted only when arrears are nil, as envisaged under Clause 5.9.4.2 of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply. It is emphatically submitted that petitioner obtained power supply on a temporary basis and that unless all sums due as on the date of termination of the agreement are paid, the HT service connection and the 33 KV sub-station cannot be dismantled. Respondents further rely upon the statutory character of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply and the tariff orders, contending that reclassification and back billing were carried out strictly in accordance with Clause 3.4.1 and Clause 12.3 of General Terms and Conditions of Supply, which expressly permit reclassification and retrospective billing in cases of misclassification or under-billing, subject to the prescribed limits. 3.8. Respondents place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Southern Electricity Supply Co. of Orissa Ltd. v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill , (2012) 2 SCC 108 , to contend that unauthorised use of electricity and breach of terms of supply attract statutory consequences and that High Courts should ordinarily refrain from interfering in assessment proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. Reliance is also placed on the decision in Hyderabad Vanaspathi Ltd. v. A.P.SEB , (1998) 4 SCC 470 , to emphasise that terms and conditions of supply are statutory in nature and binding on the consumer. 3.9. Reliance is also placed on the decision in Hyderabad Vanaspathi Ltd. v. A.P.SEB , (1998) 4 SCC 470 , to emphasise that terms and conditions of supply are statutory in nature and binding on the consumer. 3.9. On the aforesaid premises, respondents contend that action taken by them is strictly in conformity with statutory provisions, tariff orders and binding contractual terms; there is no violation of principles of natural justice and that petitioner is attempting to evade payment of legitimate dues by filing successive writ petitions. Respondents therefore, state that Writ Petition is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 4. In the reply filed, petitioner reiterates and reaffirms all the averments made in the writ affidavit and specifically denies the stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit. Petitioner while admitting execution of the Agreement, categorically denies respondents' assertion that the said Agreement was entered into for construction purposes. It is specifically contended that the power supply was obtained for manufacturing activities at the Oddu Ramavaram work site, namely production of concrete through batching plants, fabrication of MS pipes and steel structures, which fall squarely under manufacturing activity and not construction. Having regard to the nature of activities, the service was rightly classified under HT-II category initially; respondents are not entitled to treat the service connection as temporary, as the connection has been in existence continuously from 30.04.2018 for more than three years, and under the applicable tariff framework, the respondents cannot retrospectively treat it as temporary supply nor levy charges at rates applicable to temporary connections beyond the permissible period. 4.1. According to petitioner, respondents cannot invoke Clause 5.9.4.2 to demand payment of amounts which are sub judice and recovery of which stands suspended by judicial order. It is further asserted that all regular monthly consumption charges under HT-II category have been paid without default, except the back billing amounts which are expressly covered by the interim stay. Petitioner never used electricity for any construction work and that the entire consumption was confined to manufacturing activities, namely batching plants, fabrication units, welding machines and allied operations. It is further asserted that all regular monthly consumption charges under HT-II category have been paid without default, except the back billing amounts which are expressly covered by the interim stay. Petitioner never used electricity for any construction work and that the entire consumption was confined to manufacturing activities, namely batching plants, fabrication units, welding machines and allied operations. It is pointed out that the respondents themselves initially categorised the service under HT-II after verification of the nature of activity, and having done so, the subordinate officer could not have unilaterally changed the category to HT- VII without notice or justification and such unilateral reclassification is contrary to Condition No.2 of the agreement dated 30.04.2018 and violative of principles of natural justice. It is further contended that contractual terms cannot override binding judicial orders and that the respondents' plea to the contrary amounts to disregard of the authority of this Court. 4.2. With reference to the inspection dated 07.06.2019 relied upon by respondents, petitioner categorically denies the truth and correctness of the allegations contained therein. It is asserted that the said inspection was conducted without any prior notice and behind the back of the petitioner, and therefore the inspection report is not binding. Petitioner denies that it was ever involved in construction of canal tunnels of the Sita Rama Lift Irrigation Project and asserts that such allegations are baseless, unsupported by evidence and founded on a purported inspection report which was neither preceded by notice nor followed by an opportunity of explanation. It is contended that demanding payment of the entire disputed amount for dismantling the sub-station, despite the subsisting stay order, is arbitrary, coercive and violative of the rule of law. 4.3. In reply to the apprehension expressed by the respondents that dismantling of the sub-station would render recovery of dues impossible, petitioner contends that such apprehension is wholly unfounded. It is asserted that the petitioner is an established and solvent company with several ongoing contracts with the respondent corporation itself, having a registered office and a proven track record of compliance with contractual obligations. A substantial security deposit of about Rs.25,00,000/- is already lying with the respondents. The speculative apprehensions regarding recovery cannot form the basis for denial of a legitimate contractual and statutory right to dismantling, especially when the service stands disconnected since 30.08.2024. A substantial security deposit of about Rs.25,00,000/- is already lying with the respondents. The speculative apprehensions regarding recovery cannot form the basis for denial of a legitimate contractual and statutory right to dismantling, especially when the service stands disconnected since 30.08.2024. After disconnection of power supply, the continued existence of 33 KV sub-station serves no purpose except to impose an unjust financial burden on petitioner. Petitioner is being compelled to pay minimum demand charges of Rs.3,75,000/- per month, in addition to meter charges, aggregating to about Rs.4,28,022/- per month, without consuming a single unit of electricity. The pressure exerted by land-owning farmers, on whose land the sub-station is situated, has subjected petitioner to serious hardship and potential disputes. 4.4. Petitioner asserts that respondents cannot deny dismantling on the ground of non-payment of disputed dues, as petitioner has undertaken to comply with whatever orders may ultimately be passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.17803 of 2019. It is reiterated that despite repeated notices dated 29.06.2024, 27.08.2024 and 26.10.2024 terminating the contract and seeking dismantling, the respondents have failed to act in accordance with the agreement. Petitioner further assails the inspection report dated 11.06.2019 relied upon by the respondents, contending that the said report does not disclose issuance of any show cause notice prior to reclassification from HT-II to HT-VII. The report merely records an alleged conclusion that service was used for irrigation project purposes, without any evidence or reasoning. The petitioner reiterates that its original application dated 18.09.2017 clearly discloses the nature of work as batching plant, fabrication unit, welding machines and illumination systems for camps, and that the HT-II category was assigned only after due verification by the competent authority. 4.5. Petitioner further points out inconsistencies in the respondents' stand regarding the date of inspection, contending that while the counter affidavit refers to inspection on 11.06.2019, the documents now produced show inspection on 07.06.2019. It is asserted that the proceedings dated 11.06.2019 were prepared several days later and were purportedly served on an unnamed and unauthorised person, who was neither an employee nor an authorised representative of the petitioner. According to petitioner, no statement was given by any of its employees on the date of inspection and the report is a premeditated document intended to coerce payment of excessive back billing. According to petitioner, no statement was given by any of its employees on the date of inspection and the report is a premeditated document intended to coerce payment of excessive back billing. It is further contended that the inspection report does not record any concrete finding supported by evidence and proceeds on mere presumptions that power was used for irrigation purposes, despite petitioner having no contract whatsoever with irrigation department. Petitioner reiterates that usage was purely for manufacturing activities and does not fall under temporary supply or HT-VII category. The unilateral change of category and direction to issue back billing without issuing a show cause notice or affording an opportunity of hearing is asserted to be patently illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. On the aforesaid grounds, it is prayed that inspection report dated 11.06.2019 and the consequential back billing demands be rejected as illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable. 5. Heard Sri K. Manik Prabhu, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri A. Chandra Shaker, learned Standing Counsel for respondents. 6. Having considered the material on record, it is to be seen, the issues raised in the present Writ Petition are inseparably interlinked with the subject matter of Writ Petition No.17803 of 2019, as the impugned demand for payment of back billing arrears as a pre-condition for dismantling flows directly from the proceedings challenged in the said Writ Petition. It is an admitted position that petitioner was granted HT electricity supply under an Agreement dated 30.04.2018 with a contracted maximum demand of 750 KVA. It is also not in dispute that service connection was originally categorised as HT-II after scrutiny of petitioner's application and verification of the nature of activity. The subsequent reclassification of service from HT-II to HT-VII and the consequential back billing were effected unilaterally by respondents on the basis of an inspection conducted in June, 2019. 7. The legality of the said reclassification and retrospective back billing was challenged in Writ Petition No.17803 of 2019 wherein this Court, by order dated 20.08.2019, suspended operation of back billing demand subject to deposit of one-third of the demanded amount. It is not disputed that petitioner complied with the said condition and the interim order remained in force throughout. 7. The legality of the said reclassification and retrospective back billing was challenged in Writ Petition No.17803 of 2019 wherein this Court, by order dated 20.08.2019, suspended operation of back billing demand subject to deposit of one-third of the demanded amount. It is not disputed that petitioner complied with the said condition and the interim order remained in force throughout. Upon final consideration of the pleadings and material in Writ Petition No.17803 of 2019, this Court found that change of category from HT-II to HT-VII and the consequential back billing were effected without issuance of any show cause notice, without affording an opportunity of hearing and in violation of the principles of natural justice, and accordingly allowed Writ Petition No.17803 of 2019. 8. Once the proceedings giving rise to the back billing demand have been set aside, the very foundation of impugned demand in the present Writ Petition ceases to exist. Insistence of respondents on payment of such back billing arrears as a condition precedent for dismantling the service connection is therefore, rendered wholly unsustainable in law. Even otherwise, it is to be noticed, respondents' reliance on Clause 5.9.4.2 of General Terms and Conditions of Supply is misconceived in the facts of the present case. While the said Clause obligates a consumer to clear sums legally due upon termination of the Agreement, it cannot be invoked to compel payment of demands which have been adjudicated as illegal and unsustainable. Statutory conditions cannot be interpreted in a manner that validates an otherwise unlawful demand or defeats judicial review exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution. 9. Respondents' action in withholding dismantling of 33 KV sub-station, despite admitted disconnection of supply on 30.08.2024, has resulted in continued levy of minimum demand charges on petitioner without any consumption of electricity. Such action is manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable and disproportionate, particularly when petitioner completed its project, repeatedly sought dismantling, undertaken to bear dismantling costs and is facing pressure from land-owning farmers on whose land the sub-station stands erected. The apprehension expressed by respondents regarding possible difficulty in recovery of dues cannot be sustained, especially when the back billing itself has been held to be illegal and set aside. In any event, speculative apprehensions cannot override petitioner's contractual and statutory right to have the service dismantled after disconnection, nor can they justify continuance of infrastructure which no longer serves any public or contractual purpose. 10. In any event, speculative apprehensions cannot override petitioner's contractual and statutory right to have the service dismantled after disconnection, nor can they justify continuance of infrastructure which no longer serves any public or contractual purpose. 10. This Court therefore, is of the considered view that permitting dismantling of service connection and sub-station causes no prejudice whatsoever to respondents, whereas denial of such relief results in continuing financial and legal prejudice to petitioner. Balance of convenience and equity clearly tilts in favour of petitioner. In the light of the same, the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed. 11. In the result, the proceedings dated 06.11.2024, and the consequential demand insisting on payment of back billing arrears as a pre-condition for dismantling of HT Service Connection No. BKM-130 and the 33 KV sub-station, are hereby set aside. Respondents are directed to dismantle 33 KV sub- station and HT Service Connection No. BKM-130 at Sita Rama Lift Irrigation Project, Package-5, Oddu Ramavaram Village, Mulakalapally Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without insisting on payment of disputed back billing amounts. Petitioner shall bear the expenses involved in dismantling, as already undertaken. 11.1. It is further declared that reclassification of petitioner's service connection from HT-II to HT-VII and consequential back billing demands, which formed the subject matter of Writ Petition No.17803 of 2019 are illegal and unsustainable, and Writ Petition No. 17803 of 2019 stands allowed accordingly. It is clarified that except to the extent set aside herein, this Court has not expressed any opinion on any other independent claims or liabilities, if any, in accordance with law. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. 13. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.