1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3444 OF 2009 Al-Can Exports Pvt.Ltd. ...Petitioners v/s The District Collector, Thane and others ...Respondents Mr M.M. Vashi for Petitioners. Mr V.S. Gokhale, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Ms A.R.S. Baxi for Respondent No.3. Mr V.V. Joglekar i/b M/s A.V. Iyer and Associates for Respondent No.4. Mr A.G. Variath i/b M/s Law Forum for Intervenors. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND K.K. TATED JJ. DATE : 17TH NOVEMBER 2009. 2 P.C. :- 1] Rule, returnable forthwith. Head finally by consent of the parties. 2] There is no dispute that the property belonging to the respondent No.4 has been sold under the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code for recovery of the dues which were to be recovered as arrears of land revenue and at that stage, the petitioners have been declared as highest bidders and the sale has been confirmed in favour of the petitioners. There also does not appear to be any dispute that an amount of approximately Rs. 14,00,000/- is due from the respondent No.4  Company to the Maharashra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. - respondent No.3 as electricity consumption charges in relation to the factory which was sold to the petitioners. According to the petitioners, an amount in excess of Rs.24,00,000/- is still in deposit with the Collector. The prayer of the petitioners is that as the respondent No.3 is not considering their request for reconnecting the supply of electricity without 3 payment of dues of the respondent No.3 in relation to the factory the Collector be directed to pay the dues of the respondent No.3. This request is opposed on behalf of the respondent No.4. According to the respondent No.4, they have challenged the sale and therefore, from the sale proceeds nothing should be paid. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submits that according to the Rules applicable to them, they are not liable to reconnect the electricity supply to the factory without their dues being paid. Taking therefore overall view of the matter, we put it to the learned counsel appearing for petitioners whether the petitioners would be wiling to undertake to this Court to secure the interest of the respondent No.3 in case the amount is paid by the Collector to respondent No.3 and ultimately the sale is set aside. The learned counsel appearing for petitioners, after taking instructions from the Director of the petitioner Company, who is present in Court, agreed to give such an undertaking. In our opinion, following order will serve the interest of justice. 4 3] The respondent No.2  Tahasildar is directed to release in favour of the respondent No.3 the amount of arrears of electricity charges on the respondent No.3 communicating to the respondent No.2 the exact amount of arrears, within one week of the date of communication. This will be done after the petitioners file an undertaking in this Court undertaking to this Court that in case there is any order made by any competent authority directing the respondent No.3 to bring back the money which is being released by the respondent No.2 in their favour, the money will be paid or deposited by the petitioners and not by the respondent No.3. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Private Secretary of this Court. Certified copy expedited. ( JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH ) ( JUSTICE K.K. TATED )