B.S. Patil, J.

1. M/s. Channagiri Cements Private Limited has filed these two Writ Petitions against Hubli Electricity Supply Company Limited (for short 'HESCOM') and its officers. In Writ Petition No. 61555 of 2011, petitioner has challenged the order dated 02nd February, 2011 issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer, HESCOM, Mudhol Sub-division, Mudhol, Bagalkot District, produced at Annexure 'K'. As per the said order, Assistant Executive Engineer has passed a final order holding that for the period from 27th February, 2008 to 17th April, 2010, i.e., from the date of disconnection of electricity supply till the date of reconnection, in terms of Clause 33.00 of the Conditions of Supply of Electricity of the Distribution Licensees in the State of Karnataka for short 'Conditions of Supply of Electricity', minimum charges for power supply in accordance with tariff in force from time to time shall be payable by the consumer. The respondent officer has further held that as the installation had been reconnected as per Conditions of Supply of Electricity, meaning thereby the terminated power supply Agreement had been deemed to have been restored from the date of disconnection itself in the same Revenue Register (R.R.) number which has been continued, demand of charges in a sum of Rs. 27,21,116/- was in accordance with law.

2. In the connected Writ Petition No. 84387 of 2013, petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus against the respondent/HESCOM and its authorities to refund an amount of Rs. 68,96,044/- along with interest at 18% per annum by considering the representations produced at Annexures 'A' to 'C.

3. Petitioner has also challenged communication dated 07th August, 2013 Annexure 'D' issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer/respondent No. 1 informing that petitioner was not entitled for refund of Rs. 68,98,044/-. Similarly, communications dated 02nd August, 2013 issued by the Executive Engineer (Ele.) (O&M division), HESCOM, Mudhol, refusing the said request has been also called in question (Annexure 'E'). Two other communications vide Annexure 'F' dated 01st August, 2013 issued by the General Manager (HESCOM) and communication dated 26th October, 2013 vide Annexure 'G' issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer to the same effect and demanding payment of balance charges payable have been also called in question.

4. Facts, briefly stated, leading to the dispute are that, petitioner/company had taken electricity connection for running its manufacturing unit in the process of production of cement. Vigilance squad attached to HESCOM, Mudhol, inspected the factory on 27th February, 2008 and registered a case of theft of electricity noticing that in the underground cable, loop was inserted which had tampered the meter, thereby reducing to a large extent recording of all consumption of electricity. Crime No. 142 of 2008 was registered. The Assistant Executive Engineer issued a provisional bill for Rs. 2,06,88,132/- with compounding charges of Rs. 58,30,000/-, totalling to Rs. 2,65,18,132/.

5. Petitioner challenged the action of the Assistant Executive Engineer by filing Writ Petition No. 9267 of 2008 assailing the demand notice dated 03rd March, 2008. This Court by order dated 12th February, 2009 quashed the provisional demand made and remanded the matter to the Assistant Executive Engineer for fresh disposal in accordance with law by considering the objections filed by petitioner. A fresh order was passed on 23rd April, 2009 reiterating the earlier order holding that petitioner was liable to pay total amount of Rs. 2,06,88,132/- and a sum of Rs. 58,30,000/- towards back billing and compounding charges respectively.

6. This order was challenged in W.P. No. 66559 of 2009 [GM-KEB]. On 23rd February, 2010, an interim order of stay was granted subject to petitioner depositing l/3rd of the amount, where after, respondents were directed to restore electricity to the installation of petitioner ?rd of the claim, which came to aroun