JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. These two writ applications, filed by the same petitioner in relation to the same subject matter, has been heard and disposed of by this common order. 2. Petitioner filed CWJC No. 3078 of 1999(R) for quashing the order dated 7.10.1999 passed by Electrical Superintending Engineer, Ranchi Electrical Circle, Ranchi who directed for disconnection of electric line of the petitioner and also for a declaration that the order dated 24.9.1999 issued by the Secretary, Revenue Department, Bihar State Electricity Board imposing new tariff without making any notification in the official gazette is illegal and against the law. 3. Petitioners case in brief is that it is a Small Scale Industry and is manufacturing MS ingots with an induction furnace having capacity of 3 M. Tons. In 1996, petitioner entered into an agreement with the Board for supply of electricity with a connected load of 1600 KVA. On 7.9.1999 a fresh agreement was entered into by the petitioner with the Board whereby connecting load was increased to 2940 KVA pursuant to installation of additional furnace of 3 M.Tons capacity. On 9.9.1999 petitioners line was energized. On 15.9.1999 an inspection was conducted by Bihar State Electricity Board and inspection report was submitted, wherein there was no allegation of pilferage of electricity. However, by letter dated 7.10.1999, respondent Board disconnected the supply of electricity on the ground of non-cooperation by the petitioner during inspection. On 7.10.1999, a Sanha was lodged in the police station. Petitioner filed the instant writ petition challenging the disconnection made on 7.10.1999. On 13.10.1999, the Board lodged an FIR alleging theft of electricity. On 14/10.1999 an interim order was passed by this Court directing the Board to restore the supply of electricity. However, in the meantime, action was taken by the Vigilance and the transformer was sealed. The Board therefore expressed its inability to restore supply of electricity. On 28.10.1999 both the parties were restrained from removing any articles. Thereafter, respondent-Board raised certain bills and this Court by order dated 10.12.1999 stayed the operation of the new tariff. On 11.4.2000 supply of electricity was restored for the first time and it continued till 17.5.2000 when again line was disconnected. The respondent/Board thereafter, raised bills under Clause 16.9 of the tariff. The Board again raised a fresh bill for a sum of Rs. 52,88,24,914/-. On 11.4.2000 supply of electricity was restored for the first time and it continued till 17.5.2000 when again line was disconnected. The respondent/Board thereafter, raised bills under Clause 16.9 of the tariff. The Board again raised a fresh bill for a sum of Rs. 52,88,24,914/-. This Court thereafter, passed order on 30.1.2001 restraining the Board from taking any coercive step pursuant to the said bill. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at length. I have also heard Mr. V.P. Singh, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Jharkhand State Electricity Board. Mr. Mihir Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing for the Bihar State Electricity Board submitted that this client has no interest in this matter and the name of Bihar State Electricity Board be deleted from the cause title of the writ application. 5. After hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties, it transpires that serious disputed question of facts are involved in these petitions, which requires full investigation. Admittedly, the transformer installed in the premises of the petitioner was energized on 9.9.1999 and the line was disconnected on 7.10.1999. Again supply of electricity was restored on 11.4.2000, but it was disconnected on 17.5.2000 and disconnection continued till date. In such situation the action of the Board in raising bills for the entire period appears to be unjustified. Moreover, when the Board not only in the counter affidavit but also before this Court contended that new tariff shall not be implemented so far petitioner is concerned before it was finally notified in the official gazette, raising of bills on the basis of new tariff for the period prior to its notification is justified or not is the question which also requires consideration. 6. In course of argument, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that petitioner Industry is closed since the date when line was disconnected and the petitioner is not in a position to install its own transformer. Learned counsel submitted that this matter may be referred to the appropriate authority for consideration and for final adjudication. Mr. V.P. Singh learned senior counsel appearing for the Jharkhand State Eletricity Board has no objection in the matter is referred to the appropriate authority preferably the Chairman of the Board for final adjudication of the dispute between the parties. 7. Learned counsel submitted that this matter may be referred to the appropriate authority for consideration and for final adjudication. Mr. V.P. Singh learned senior counsel appearing for the Jharkhand State Eletricity Board has no objection in the matter is referred to the appropriate authority preferably the Chairman of the Board for final adjudication of the dispute between the parties. 7. Taking into consideration the fair stand taken by the learned counsels appearing for the parties, I dispose of these two writ applications with a direction to the Chairman, Jharkhand State Electricity Board to consider the case of the petitioner and also the case of the Board and take final decision by passing a reasoned order. Petitioner shall submit his statement of claim/representation together with all relevant documents and orders time to time passed by this Court. Similarly, the Board shall also submit their respective claim together with all the documents. On receipt of the papers from the parties, the Chairman shall decide the dispute within GO days from the date of receipt of representation and after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the parties. 8. Mr. V.P. Singh, learned counsel for the Jharkhand State Electricity Board- submitted that during pendency of the writ petition, petitioner had submitted one cheque for Rs. 29,32,408/- drawn in favour of Bihar State Electricity Board and therefore, petitioner may be directed to issue fresh cheque for the said amount in favour of the Jharkhand State Electricity Board. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the Bihar State Electricity Board have no objection for the same. Accordingly, petitioner is directed to handover fresh cheque for the aforesaid amount drawn in favour of the Jharkhand State Electricity Board to Mr. V.P. Singh, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Jharkhand State Electricity Board within two weeks from today.