ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. In this writ case, the petitioner has challenged the electricity bills, as raised by the respondent Bihar State Electricity Board (now Jharkhand State Electricity Board-hereinafter to be referred as JSEB), contained in Annexure- 1, 2 series and 3 series to the writ petition. Further prayer has been made to direct the respondents to raise fresh bills, taking into consideration the fact that the bills have been raised by the respondents without any basis and without taking into consideration the meter reading and the inspection report. 2. According to the petitioner, he got an electric connection from the respondent-Board for his shop of Generator parts, measuring an area of 10 x 14 vide Consumer No. CSBI B-543 category CS 2 at P.B. Road, Jugsalai, Jamshedpur. He used the electric points like 2 bulbs of 100 watt, one fan of 60 watt and two tube-light of 40 watt i.e. total 340 watt since 1989. Grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents raised electricity bills of the period, in question, arbitrarily, though from the year, 1944 up to March, 1997 they were raising bills showing consumption of 50 units per month on average basis. 3. It is alleged that the bills for the months of April, 1997 onwards, for example the bills of April, 1997 November, 1998 and January, 1999 have been raised @ 500 units per month without any basis and without meter reading. 4. According to the learned counsel for the Board, the electric connection of the petitioner was disconnected on account of non-payment of bill amount for Rs. 77041.88 paise. On inspection it was found that the petitioner was drawing electricity directly by hooking with the electrical line. The bill was, therefore, raised for such illegal withdrawal of electrical energy. 5. In the present case, it is not possible for this Court to determine as to whether the bills for such months were correctly raised or not. Further, I find that the bills were raised since the year, 1997 onwards but not representation was preferred before the concerned Chief Engineer, as per 1993, traiff. After number of years, while the petitioner has challenged the bill of April, 1994 onwards, as contained in Annexure-3, has also challenged the arrears of fuel surcharge. 6. Further, I find that the bills were raised since the year, 1997 onwards but not representation was preferred before the concerned Chief Engineer, as per 1993, traiff. After number of years, while the petitioner has challenged the bill of April, 1994 onwards, as contained in Annexure-3, has also challenged the arrears of fuel surcharge. 6. In the facts and circumstances, while this Court is not inclined to interfere with the bills, as were raised since April, 1994 to January, 1999 gives liberty to the petitioner to file representation before the competent authority of the Board relating to any bill of recent years, such as, bills as contained in Annexure-3, if so aggrieved. If any representation is preferred by the petitioner against bill No. 38, dated 5th July, 1999 before the concerned General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, the said authority may determine it on merit. So far as the energy bills for the earlier period are concerned, the matter having become state, no liberty is given to the petitioner to raise dispute with regard to the earlier period. However, it is made clear that the present order, in any way, will not prejudice any other proceeding, including the proceeding, stated to have been lodged against the writ petitioner. 7. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations. However, there will be no order as to costs.