JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The writ application has been preferred by the petitioner M/s. Automobile Ancillary Industries, Jamshedpur (Singhbhum East) with two prayer i.e. (i) for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding upon the respondents to restore the electric line in the petitioner factory, having connection No. ADLT-3, AV 162, which was disconnected on 20th January, 2000 pursuant to an FIR, lodged by 4th respondent, Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Adityapur, Jamshedpur and (ii) for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to replace the metering box in which the meter as well as CT have been installed in respect to which the petitioner has given several reminders. Further prayer is to direct the respondents not to raise any bill under clause 16.9 of the Electricity Tariff, 1993. 2. It appears that the petitioner, a Small Scale Industry, is a Low Tension Industrial Service Consumer, which obtained contract demand of 79 HP from the then Bihar State Electricity Board (now Jharkhand State Electricity Board- hereinafter to be referred as JSEB). 3. Subsequently, a new electronic, meter was installed in the factory premises of the petitioner on 7th December, 1998 in a wooden box. On the other side of box CTPI Unit was installed. A number of time, officers of the respondent-Board made inspection and took reading from time to time. In the month of April, 1999, the wooden box was found tilted down from the wall. According to the petitioner, the matter was informed to the concerned Assistant Electrical Engineer as also to one Mr. Mohanty, who was the Incharge of the substation, with a copy to the Superintending Engineer, by letter dated 26th April, 1999. According to the petitioner, inspite of such requests, no action was taken by the respondents to fix the meter box properly on the wall. Later on, the authorities of the Electricity Board alleged theft of electricity and lodged one First Information Report on 20th January, 2000 on the basis of a report, submitted by the Committee, headed over by the Electrical Executive Engineer. In the First Information Report, it was alleged that CTPI box, adjacent to the meter, was found broken and the electrical theft was being made by the petitioner. In the First Information Report, it was alleged that CTPI box, adjacent to the meter, was found broken and the electrical theft was being made by the petitioner. It was further alleged that though average consumption by the unit is shown as 1500 unit per month, at least 6000 unit per month is being utilized by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the First Information Report was lodged by the officer of the Board, just to harass the petitioner. The meter box having tilted down, the matter was informed to the concerned authority, including the higher authority, and because of latches on their part, no action was taken. Now with a view to suppress their latches, First Information Report has been lodged mala fide against the petitioner. It has been further submitted that the petitioner being LTIS consumer, is supposed to draw minimum 80 units per HP, which comes to 6320 units per month. If the petitioner is bound to pay minimum at the rate of 6320 units per month, the question of theft of energy up to 6000 units cannot be alleged. Learned course for the petitioner submitted that during pendency of the writ petitioner, the respondents illegally raised a supplementary bill for the period, in question, on the basis of the First Information Report for Rs. 1,17,089.89 paise, which has been challenged by the petitioner by way of filing an amendment petition. 5. From the order sheet, it appears that this Court by an interim order dated 21st February, 2000 directed to restore the electricity supply of the petitioner on payment of Rs. 75,000/-. The petitioner having deposited the said amount of Rs. 75,000/-against the bill, in question, the electric supply has been restored to its unit. 6. According to the learned, counsel for the Board, the prayer for restoration of electric supply has become infructuous, the electric connection having been restored, in view of the interim order, passed by this Court. Mr. Jerath, learned counsel for the Board submitted that the allegation made by the petitioner is an after thought. The inspection was made by the team in presence of the consumer, Mr. Sarawgi, who made no objection at the time of inspection. He also signed in the report, in which it was written that the meter box was found broken. 7. Jerath, learned counsel for the Board submitted that the allegation made by the petitioner is an after thought. The inspection was made by the team in presence of the consumer, Mr. Sarawgi, who made no objection at the time of inspection. He also signed in the report, in which it was written that the meter box was found broken. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that the substantive prayer, made in the writ petition, has become infructuous. The electric connection having been restored, the question of further direction to restore the electric connection does not arise. Further, supplementary bill having been raised, now the question of issuance of a writ of mandamus or prohibition from raising bill, in question, under Clause 16.9 of the 1993 Tariff also does not arise. So far as First Information Report is concerned, no finding can be given by this Court in a writ jurisdiction. It is for the competent Court to determine whether any theft had taken place or not. So far as the bill is concerned, supplementary bill for Rs. 1,17,089.89 paise having been raised, it is not possible for this Court to give any finding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in one or other way, as to whether it was correctly raised. If it was raised without notice to the petitioner, the petitioner may bring it to the notice of the competent authority. If any petition is preferred by the petitioner against the bill, in question, before the concerned General Manager, the said authority is expected to hear the parties and to decide the claim on merit expeditiously. 8. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and direction. However, there will be not order as to costs.