G.S Singhvi, J.— Leave granted. These appeals are directed against the orders dated 5-12-2008 passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No. 6744 (M/B) of 2008 whereby it accepted report dated 17-10-2008 submitted by Justice K.S Rakhra (Retired), quashed orders dated 1-3-2008 and 26-3-2008 passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Lucknow Electricity Administration, Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. (for short “the Consumer Forum”) and the Electricity Ombudsman respectively and directed Appellant 1, U.P Power Corporation Ltd. to pay Rs. 1,69,261 to the writ petitioner (Respondent 1 herein).
2. Respondent 1 is running a spinning mill and is a consumer of electricity supplied by Appellant 1. In 1994, a notice was issued to Respondent 1 to pay the dues of electricity amounting to Rs. 19,15,929.20. After paying a sum of Rs. 3,02,668, Respondent 1 filed Writ Petition No. 3503 (M/B) of 1994 with the grievance that the demand was highly inflated and the representation made against the same has not been decided. By an order dated 9-9-1994, the Division Bench of the High Court directed the Secretary of the Cooperative Electric Society Ltd., Lucknow to decide the representation of Respondent 1.
3. The authority concerned passed order dated 2-2-1995 and held that as on 31-12-1994, a sum of Rs. 22,35,515.19 was payable by Respondent 1 towards the dues of electricity. However, instead of complying with order dated 2-2-1995 and with a view to avoid payment of the outstanding dues, Respondent 1 filed successive writ petitions and instituted other proceedings, the details of which are as under:
(i) Respondent 1 filed Writ Petition No. 2619 (M/B) of 2002 with the complaint that even though the appeal filed by it against the demand created by Appellant 1 was pending, the authorities concerned were taking coercive action for recovery of the so-called dues. The same was disposed of by the High Court on 15-5-2002 by taking cognizance of the statement made by the counsel appearing on behalf of Appellant 1 that General Manager, Lucknow Electricity Supply Authority (for short “LESA”) will decide the appeal of Respondent 1 within one month. Simultaneously, the High Court directed that further action in respect of the property, which had already been attached shall be taken only after decision of the appeal.
(ii) General Manager, LESA dismissed the appeal filed by Respondent 1 and held that the demand created by Appellant 1 was neither arbitrary nor excessive. The appellate order was challenged by Respondent 1 in Writ Petition No. 2907 (M/B) of 2002 on the ground that the appeal has been decided without complying with the rule of audi alteram partem. By an order dated 24-5-2002, the High Court directed the competent authority to decide the appeal afresh after giving opportunity of personal hearing to Respondent 1 and restrained the appellants from taking coercive action for recovery of the outstanding dues.
(iii) Soon after the disposal of the second writ petition, Respondent 1 filed another writ petition bearing No. 3735 (M/B) of 2002 alleging therein that its representative had not been heard by the authority concerned. That petition was disposed of by the High Court vide order dated 5-7-2002, the relevant portions of which are extracted below:
“Without entering into the factual position as alleged in the writ petition with all fairness, we fix 10-7-2002 to enable the petitioner to appear before Opposite Party 4 i.e Chief General Manager, LESA, Lucknow who shall after hearing the petitioner shall decide the matter in accordance with law on that date. It is clarified that no further adjournment will be granted in the matter by the respondents.
Till the final decision is taken, no coercive method will be used against the petitioner.”
(iv) In compliance with the Court's directive, General Manager, LESA heard the representative of Respondent 1 and passed detailed order dated 10-7-2002, paras 2 to 6 whereof are reproduced below:
“2. The applicant M/s Amausi Textile Mills Ltd., in his letter dated 16-11-1980 (Annexure 4) has applied for supply of electricity billing for his industry in continuous process. Accordingly billing from time to time is being sent to the applicant for the electricity consumption on continuous process as per existing tariff regarding which payment was also made by the applicant.
3. With regard to concession demanded by the applicant in respect of block closer it is submitted that in respect of industry under power cut two following types of alternatives were available under continuous process:
(a) If the average demand of the electricity by way of operating under power cut from the month of July 1971 to June 1972 to the tune of 50%.
(b) If the condition of block closer is adhered to.
The applicant instead of choosing the option of block closer (b), had chosen the option of curtailing the demand under the restriction under option (a) according to which he was getting concession admissible from time to time. Thus, the contention of the applicant that it is entitled to get concession under block closer and same should be given to him, is not proper because the applicant has not chosen the said option. Therefore, the concession admissible under this option is not admissible to the applicant.
4. The real description or detail has been provided by the defendant to the applicant amounting to Rs. 53,72,006.87 during the course of hearing regarding which the receipt was also admitted by the applicant.
5. It has become evident that for realising the dismantling charges of the established line and equipment, a charge of Rs. 1,36,915.00 towards labour, loading and supervision charges has been levied in accordance with the provisions for dismantling the electricity lines. So far as the question of removing the electricity line and equipments physically, the said amount will remain unaffected because in the aforesaid amount the costs of electricity lines and equipments are not included.
6. By the applicant it has been prayed that the charge of surcharge mention in notice of electricity dues should be waived. In this regard this is mentioned that Defendant 2, Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, (CESS) Zone, LESA, Lucknow and notice for realising the amount of Rs. 53,72,006.87 which includes the amount of surcharge but it is evident that no surcharge has been levied further on the amount of surcharge. This factum is also fully evident from perusal of chart submitted by Defendant 2 with respect to delayed surcharge.”
(v) As a sequel to dismissal of the appeal preferred by Respondent 1, the prescribed authority i.e the Executive Engineer issued recovery certificate dated 4-10-2002 and requested the Collector (District Magistrate) to recover Rs. 53,71,988.87 as arrears of land revenue.
(vi) Respondent 1 questioned the legality of recovery certificate in Writ Petition No. 6121 (M/B) of 2002, which was disposed of by the High Court on 7-10-2002. The Division Bench of the High Court noted that Respondent 1 had already filed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the 1996 Act”) for appointment of an arbitrator and another application under Section 9 of that Act and stayed the recovery subject to the condition of deposit of half of the amount specified in the recovery certificate.
(vii) Respondent 1 did not comply the direction given by the High Court and filed an application before the U.P Electricity Regulatory Commission, Lucknow (for short “the Commission”) for appointment of an arbitrator in terms of Clause 18 of the Agreement of Supply. The Commission dismissed the application by observing that the matter relating to appointment of an arbitrator is pending before the District Judge, Lucknow.
(viii) When the application filed by Respondent 1 under Section 9 of the 1996 Act was taken up for hearing, no one appeared on its behalf. Therefore, by an order dated 26-3-2004, District Judge, Lucknow dismissed the same for non-prosecution. The restoration application filed by Respondent 1 was also dismissed for non-prosecution.
(ix) In the interregnum, Appellant 1 floated One-Time Settlement Scheme (OTS), which envisaged waiver of late payment surcharge to the extent of 100 per cent subject to the condition of deposit of the amount due. Respondent 1 opted for OTS but did not pay the outstanding dues except one instalment of Rs. 9 lakhs and on that account, it could not get the benefit of clause relating to waiver of late payment surcharge.
(x) After deducting the amount of Rs. 9 lakhs deposited by Respondent 1, the prescribed authority issued revised recovery certificate dated 6-9-2007 and forwarded the same to the Collector (District Magistrate).
(xi) Respondent 1 challenged the revised recovery certificate in Writ Petition No. 78 (M/B) of 2008 and tried to hoodwink the High Court by withholding the material facts and documents including order dated 10-7-2002 passed by General Manager, LESA. When the counsel appearing for Respondent 1 found that the High Court is likely to dismiss the writ petition on the ground that his client had not come with clean hands, he made a prayer that the writ petition may be dismissed as not pressed. The High Court accepted his request and dismissed the writ petition as not pressed but after recording detailed order dated 17-1-2008, the relevant portions of which are reproduced below:
“The petitioner who had a spinning mill fell in electricity dues amounting to Rs. 19,15,929.29. In 1994 when the notice was issued for electricity dues he preferred a Writ Petition No. 3503 (M/B) of 1994 before this Court and the writ petition was disposed of on 9-9-1994 directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 1 to the short counter-affidavit. In pursuance of the judgment and order dated 9-9-1994 the competent authority decided the controversy and communicated that Rs. 15,19,515.19 is due against the petitioner, vide letter dated 2-2-1985. Since the petitioner failed to pay the amount to satisfy the dues, the recovery proceedings were initiated.
Feeling aggrieved by the recovery proceedings, the petitioner filed a second Writ Petition No. 2619 (M/B) of 2002. The said writ petition was decided by the judgment and order dated 15-5-2002 directing the respondents to take further action on the property attached only after the decision in the appeal by the competent authority, a copy of the order dated 15-5-2002 has been annexed as Annexure 2 to the short counter-affidavit.
When the controversy was decided again by the competent authority in appeal, the petitioner filed the third Writ Petition No. 2907 (M/B) of 2002 on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner in appeal. Hence this Court interfering in the writ petition passed the judgment and order dated 24-5-2002 directing the respondent to provide opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 3 to the writ petition. In pursuance of the judgment and order dated 24-5-2002 passed by this Court the controversy was adjudicated afresh by the competent authority vide order dated 5-7-2002 calling the petitioner before the General Manager, LESA and providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
The General Manager, LESA decided the controversy in pursuance of the judgment and order dated 24-5-2002 of this Court afresh after giving full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by order dated 10-7-2002 a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 5 to the writ petition. The order dated 10-7-2002 was never challenged by the petitioner and the same attained finality. However, the petitioner's counsel submits that the consequential citation of recovery of dues in pursuance of the order dated 10-7-2002 was challenged in this Court and the writ petition was dismissed.
Instead of making payment of dues in pursuance of the order dated 10-7-2002 even after dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioner filed another Writ Petition No. 6121 (M/B) of 2002 against the recovery which comes to Rs. 53,72,006.87. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 7-10-2002 directing the petitioner to pay half of the amount to Respondent 2 within three weeks and rest of the amount in instalments, a copy of the judgment and order dated 7-10-2002 has been annexed as Annexure 6 to the writ petition. Thereafter again the controversy relating to one-time settlement was adjudicated by the competent authority vide order dated 31-10-2003. While approaching this Court, the petitioner did not disclose any of these facts.
At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petition may be dismissed as not pressed. It is accordingly dismissed being not pressed.”
(emphasis supplied)
(xii) Having successfully avoided the consequence of filing a writ petition by suppressing the material facts and withholding the relevant documents, Respondent 1 filed a complaint before the Consumer Forum, which was registered as Consumer Case No. 2 of 2008 and prayed for setting aside the demand of Rs. 53,71,988.87 by asserting that it had already deposited the outstanding dues vide receipt dated 5-12-1997 and that Appellant 1 was not entitled to recover late payment surcharge. The Consumer Forum referred to an order dated 17-1-2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 78 (M/B) of 2008 and held that Appellant 1 is entitled to recover the outstanding dues. The last four paras of order dated 1-3-2008 passed by the Consumer Forum read thus:
“Heard the parties at length. The complainant has argued that his grievances has never been adjudicated on merit and he was not given opportunity at any stage.
The perusal of the Hon'ble High Court judgment and order dated 17-1-2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 78 (M/B) of 2008 specifically states that in pursuance of order dated 24-5-2002 passed in Writ Petition No. 2907 (M/B) of 2002, the controversy was adjudicated afresh by competent authority calling upon the complainant vide order dated 5-7-2002 and after giving full opportunity of hearing the final order was passed by the competent authority on 10-7-2002 which was never challenged and got finality and the writ petition challenging the recovery proceeding in pursuance of the order dated 10-7-2002 was also rejected by the Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble High Court order also reveals that against the recovery demand of Rs. 53,72,006.87 the writ petition was finally disposed of on 7-10-2002 with direction to the complainant to pay half of the amount to Respondent 2 within 3 weeks and rest in instalment.
Thereafter again the controversy relating to one-time settlement was adjudicated by the competent authority but the complainant failed in the (sic) all the time and these facts were also not disclosed before the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 78 (M/B) of 2008 and also have not been disclosed before this Forum.
Since the complainant has adjudicated the present matter before the Hon'ble High Court as well as before the competent authority and the same has been adjudicated at that level by giving full opportunity to the complainant but instead of making compliance with the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court the complainant preferred the present compliant to avoid payment of the recovery of electricity dues which is not maintainable in view of the principle of res judicata and as such is liable to be dismissed.
In view of the discussion made above, the Forum is of the view that the present complaint has already been adjudicated upon after giving full opportunity by the competent authority and the same is dismissed as not maintainable. As such the Uppcl has full right to recover outstanding dues.”
(xiii) The appeal preferred by Respondent 1 was dismissed by the Electricity Ombudsman vide his order dated 26-3-2008.
(xiv) After losing battle in the High Court and other adjudicatory forums, Respondent 1 deposited Rs. 15 lakhs in two instalments of Rs. 10 lakhs and Rs. 5 lakhs and then approached the Minister of Energy, the Government of Uttar Pradesh, who directed the Managing Director of the Mandhyanchal Power Corporation to attend the grievance of Respondent 1. However, the office concerned did not yield to the pressure tactics adopted by Respondent 1 through political channel and issued revised certificate dated 28-6-2008 for recovery of Rs. 28,62,029 as arrears of land revenue. As a follow up, Naib Tahsildar, Bijnor issued proclamation dated 8-7-2008 for sale of the property of the respondents.
(xv) The issuance of the revised certificate enthused the respondents to again try their luck and they filed Writ Petition No. 6744 (M/B) of 2008 with the prayer that the recovery proceedings initiated by Appellant 1 and its functionaries, orders dated 1-3-2008 and 26-3-2008 passed by the Consumer Forum and the Electricity Ombudsman respectively and the sale proclamation may be quashed. They further prayed for issue of a direction to the prescribed authority to issue revised bill as per OTS Scheme dated 31-10-2003 after adjusting the amount already deposited and by waiving the late payment surcharge.
(xvi) At the hearing of the writ petition, which was sixth in series, the learned counsel representing Respondents 1 to 3 (including the appellants herein) apprised the Division Bench of the High Court about the successful/unsuccessful litigious and non-litigious adventures undertaken by the writ petitioners and submitted that their challenge to the revised recovery certificate should not be entertained. The Division Bench of the High Court did not deal with the objection to the maintainability of the writ petition, which was implicit in the submissions of the learned counsel and passed order dated 1-8-2008 by which a retired Judge of the High Court, namely, Justice K.S Rakhra was appointed to settle the dispute between the parties, albeit by recording that this was being done with the consent of the counsel for the parties. The relevant portions of that order are extracted below:
“Shri Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, the learned counsel for Respondents 1 to 3, on the basis of instructions, submits that at present Rs. 28,62,029 is outstanding against the petitioners. He further submits that the petitioners have filed several writ petitions before this Hon'ble Court and he also approached the Electricity Ombudsman and Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Lucknow i.e Respondents 6 and 7. He further submits that the cheques issued by the petitioners during the period April 1997 to January 1998 were dishonoured.
We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. It is admitted case of the parties that the electricity of the petitioners was disconnected permanently on 12-1-1998.
According to the petitioners, they have deposited Rs. 54,73,208 with Respondents 1 to 3 on different dates between 1997 to 2008. On the basis of instructions issued by Respondents 1 to 3, Shri Dwivedi, learned counsel for Respondents 1 to 3 has informed this Court that at present the outstanding against the petitioners is about Rs. 28,62,029 although in the proclamation of sale dated 8-7-2008 the outstanding is mentioned as Rs. 43,63,029. The petitioners have alleged that they are entitled for refund of Rs. 11,11,179. The petitioners have filed several writ petitions in this Court in the past which were finally disposed of after hearing the learned counsel for the parties.
Since the disputed question of facts are involved in this case, we, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, appoint Mr Justice K.S Rakhra (Retired) Judge of this Court to settle the dispute between the parties. The petitioners and Respondents 1 to 3 shall file their claims at the residence of Justice K.S Rakhra (Retired) on 12-8-2008, who after affording opportunity to both the parties will decide the dispute and submit the report preferably within two months before this Court.”
(emphasis supplied)
(xvii) The parties filed their respective claims before Justice K.S Rakhra (Retd.). In the statement filed on behalf of the appellants, it was pleaded that the respondents are not entitled to any relief because order dated 10-7-2002 passed by General Manager, LESA had become final and Writ Petition No. 78 (M/B) of 2008 filed against revised recovery certificate dated 6-9-2007 was dismissed as not pressed. It was also pleaded that the respondents cannot take benefit of the OTS because they failed to comply with the conditions enshrined therein.
(xviii) Justice K.S Rakhra (Retd.) did not pay due attention to the statement filed on behalf of the appellants and submitted the report dated 17-10-2008 with the following conclusions:
“On the basis of the discussions made above, it is concluded that Uppcl had not correctly calculated the late payment surcharge which in fact could be calculated as Rs. 28,37,609. They committed an error in fixing the said amount of late payment surcharge at 35% of the total bill amount and giving waiver of only sum of Rs. 18,73,474. In the split up figures of LPS in the bill amount of Rs. 53,72,006 they have also made a futile attempt to show as if the waiver was 100% of the late payment surcharge amount because, this total LPS too, has been shown to be Rs. 18,73,474.
It is further concluded that the bill raised by Uppcl after first OTS, was clearly incorrect bill for Rs. 34,98,532.26. Instead, it should have been for Rs. 23,41,739. The petitioners paid the first instalment of Rs. 9,00,000.00 under protest. Their application for OTS was entertained even second time. They were, therefore, not at fault in withholding further payment till the correct bill was raised.
The dismantling charges of Rs. 1,36,915 have been wrongly claimed instead of Rs. 400 which were standard charges.”
(xix) In his report, the learned retired Judge relied upon the statement made by Shri Akhilesh Srivastava, Executive Engineer of Appellant 1 that Respondent 1 was allowed to pay the amount in nine instalments out of which six had already been paid and concluded that only Rs. 5,07,677.03 was payable against the demand of Rs. 14,14,037.03 which remained to be paid after adjustment of the amount paid towards the bills of May to October 1997. The learned retired Judge held that Respondent 1 was entitled to 100% waiver of late payment surcharge. He further held that Appellant 1 is not entitled to levy dismantling charges and interest and concluded that as against the outstanding dues of Rs. 23,41,739, Respondent 1 had already paid Rs. 25,11,000.
(xx) The appellants filed detailed objections against the report of Justice K.S Rakhra (Retd.). They pointed out that the cheques given by Respondent 1 towards five out of nine instalments had been dishonoured and despite being asked, it did not produce the bank statement. The appellants also alleged that the respondents had manipulated the bill dated 1-12-1997. As regards the OTS, the appellants pointed out that benefit thereof could be availed only if the amount was paid by 31-10-2003, which the respondents failed to do. It was also pointed out that a cheque of Rs. 9 lakhs given by Respondent 1 on 30-11-2003 was dishonoured by the bank on 9-12-2003 and later on, payment was made through a fresh cheque. According to the appellants, the respondents did not pay the remaining instalments and, therefore, they were not entitled to waiver of the late payment surcharge in terms of the OTS. On the issue of levy of dismantling charges, the appellants pointed out that the demand was made strictly as per the order of the Board and Rs. 400 were payable only by those consumers who were getting supply from the sub-station.
(xxi) The High Court summarily brushed aside the objections filed by the appellants and allowed the writ petition by relying upon the report of Justice K.S Rakhra (Retd.) as if the determination made by him was final.
4. Shri T.N Singh, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside because the Division Bench of the High Court failed to appreciate that the respondents had not challenged the determination made by the General Manager, LESA vide order dated 10-7-2002 and the fact that Writ Petition No. 78 (M/B) of 2008 filed by Respondent 1 was dismissed as not pressed. The learned counsel argued that the Division Bench of the High Court was not at all justified in undertaking an exercise for redetermination of the liability of the respondents to pay the dues of electricity ignoring that their challenge to the recovery certificates issued earlier had failed and they did not pay a single farthing in compliance with order dated 7-10-2002 passed in Writ Petition No. 6121 (M/B) of 2002 and also failed to honour the commitment made to pay the dues in terms of the OTS. The learned counsel also assailed the report of Shri Justice K.S Rakhra (Retd.) and argued that the learned Judge totally exceeded his brief when he held that the respondents are entitled to refund of Rs. 1,69,261.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents did not dispute that the order dated 10-7-2002 passed by the General Manager, LESA was not challenged by his clients and that Writ Petition No. 78 (M/B) of 2008 filed by them was dismissed as not pressed but argued that after having agreed to the appointment of a retired Judge to settle the dispute between the parties, the appellants are estopped from questioning the findings contained in the report of Justice K.S Rakhra (Retd.). In the written submissions filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been claimed that the petitioners are not entitled to challenge the report of Justice K.S Rakhra (Retd.) because he was appointed with the consent of the counsel for the parties.
6. It has been further claimed that the demand of late payment surcharge was totally unjustified and in any case, the appellants are not entitled to realise the amount specified in the order dated 10-7-2002 passed by the General Manager, LESA because details of the outstanding dues were never furnished to the respondents. The respondents have also justified the findings recorded in the report of Justice K.S Rakhra (Retd.) by contending that the appellants cannot claim dismantling charges and interest on late payment surcharge because the respondents were allowed to pay the due amount in instalments and all the dues had been cleared.
7. We have thoughtfully considered the submissions of the learned counsel. In our view, the writ petition filed by the respondents for setting aside orders dated 1-3-2008 and 26-3-2008 passed by the Consumer Forum and the Electricity Ombudsman as also the sale proclamation was nothing but was an abuse of the process of the court and the High Court committed serious error by entertaining and allowing the same. It is not in dispute that in none of the writ petitions filed by them, Respondent 1.the respondents challenged the order dated 10-7-2002 passed by the General Manager, LESA, who held that Respondent 1 was liable to pay the dues amounting to Rs. 53,72,006.87. Therefore, the consequential action taken by the prescribed authority to issue recovery certificate/revised recovery certificate was not open to be challenged by the respondents and in any case, order dated 10-7-2002 could not have been indirectly nullified by the High Court by allowing the writ petition filed for quashing orders dated 1-3-2008 and 26-3-2008 passed by the Consumer Forum and the Electricity Ombudsman.
8. Unfortunately, the Division Bench of the High Court not only failed to notice this designed omission on the respondents' part to challenge the order dated 10-7-2002 passed by the General Manager, LESA but also ignored the stark facts that Respondent 1 failed to comply with order dated 7-10-2002 passed in Writ Petition No. 6121 (M/B) of 2002 and that Writ Petition No. 78 (M/B) of 2008 filed by it for quashing the revised recovery certificate dated 6-9-2007 was dismissed as not pressed. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible to fathom any reasons why the High Court appointed Justice K.S Rakhra (Retd.) for settlement of dispute between the parties, the determination of which, in its own opinion involved investigation into disputed questions of fact.
9. It seems to us that the Division Bench was very much conscious of the limitations of the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and, therefore, it evolved a novel method for granting relief to the respondents. We disapprove the mechanism adopted by the High Court for disposing of the writ petition filed by the respondents by relying upon the report of the retired Judge, who recorded findings in derogation of the order dated 10-7-2002 passed by the General Manager, LESA and completely overlooked the factum of dismissal of Writ Petition No. 78 (M/B) of 2008 filed by Respondent 1 against the revised recovery certificate dated 6-9-2007.
10. Although the sixth writ petition filed by the respondents cannot be treated as barred by res judicata because in the previous writ petitions, they did not have the occasion to challenge the orders dated 1-3-2008 and 26-3-2008 passed by the Consumer Forum and the Electricity Ombudsman and the sale proclamation, while passing the impugned orders, the High Court was duty-bound to take note of conduct of Respondent 1 which had instituted five writ petitions and other proceedings with the sole object of avoiding its liability to pay the dues of electricity. The High Court should also have taken note of the fact that Respondent 1 did not abide by the terms of the OTS and declined to entertain the prayer made by the respondents.
11. Dehors what has been observed in the preceding paragraphs, we are convinced that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside because the High Court has not assigned any reason for quashing orders dated 1-3-2008 and 26-3-2008 and the sale proclamation. The Division Bench of the High Court did not find any legal infirmity in the decisions taken by the Consumer Forum and the Electricity Ombudsman not to entertain the respondents' prayer for nullifying the demand raised by Appellant 1 and yet it quashed the two orders by simply reproducing and relying upon the report of Justice K.S Rakhra (Retd.), which was prepared by distorting the facts and with the sole purpose of espousing the cause of the respondents.
12. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders are set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondents before the High Court is dismissed. Within one month from today, the appellants shall supply to the respondents a statement containing the details of the outstanding dues. The statement shall also incorporate the amounts already paid by and on behalf of Respondent 1. Within six months of the receipt of the statement, the respondents shall pay the outstanding dues in six equated monthly instalments. The first instalment shall be paid by the end of June 2010 and the remaining instalments shall be paid on or before 31st July, 31st August, 30th September, 31st October and 30th November, 2010. If the respondents omit to pay either of the instalments, the appellants shall become entitled to recover the entire balance amount along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.