JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. This writ petition was preferred by the petitioner M/s. K. Steel Pvt. Ltd., Jamshedpur, for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding upon the respondents to restore the electric supply in its factory, which was disconnected on 3rd November, 1999, pursuant to an inspection, made in the factory premises of the petitioner. 2. It appears that in the factory premises of the petitioner, a High Tension Consumer (H.T. Consumer for short), an -inspection was made by the officials of the Bihar State Electricity Board (now Jharkhand State Electricity Board- hereinafter to be referred as the Board) and on the ground of theft of electricity, electrical connection was disconnected on 3rd November, 1999 itself and an FIR was lodged against the Directors and others of the petitioner Company. The petitioner pleaded that the police has closed the case by submitting final report in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella. 3. However, it appears that the final form, submitted by the police, was not accepted by the trial Court and the trial commenced. During pendency of this writ petition, on the basis of inspection report the respondent-Board raised compensatory bill dated 3rd November, 1999 for Rs. 6,42,93,040.00 paise under Clause 16.9 of the 1993 Tariff. In the criminal case, the accused were given benefit of doubt and were acquitted. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner challenged the bill of September, 1999 for Rs. 34,84,154.00 paise as also the bill of October, 1999 for Rs. 35,01,020.00 paise. By filling an amendment petition, the petitioner also challenged the bill, amounting to Rs. 6,42,93,040.00 paise. 4. Taking into consideration the development and the fact that the petitioner has already deposited the amount of Rs. 34,84,154.00 paise towards first bill and further an amount of Rs. 20,00,000.00 against the second bill for Rs. 35,01,020.00 paise, pursuant to an order, passed by this Court on 10th April, 2000 as also the fact that so far the 3rd bill, raised on the basis of Clause 16.9 of the 1993 Tariff, is concerned, the petitioner has submitted that the criminal case ended in acquittal, this Court vide order dated 5th July, 2001 while stayed recovery of the balance amount of the 2nd bill for Rs. 35,01,020.00 paise, also stayed the 3rd bill, raised under clause 16.9 of the 1993 Tariff i.e., for Rs. 6,42,93,040.00 paise. 5. 35,01,020.00 paise, also stayed the 3rd bill, raised under clause 16.9 of the 1993 Tariff i.e., for Rs. 6,42,93,040.00 paise. 5. By order of the Court, the electrical connection having been restored, the petitioner was directed to pay the current bill, as may be raised by the Board for the month of April, 2000 and onwards on the basis of the Tariff. 6. Admittedly, the substantive relief for restoration of electricity, as was sought for by the petitioner, has become infructuous. Now the only question, which requires determination, is whether the bill for Rs. 6,42,93,040.00 paise, raised under Clause 16.9 of the 1993 Tariff as also the other two bills; one for the month of September, 1999 for Rs. 34,84,154.00 paise and another for the month of October, 1999 for Rs. 34,84,154.00 paise and another for the month of October, 1999 for Rs. 35,01,020.00 paise have been properly raised or not. Admittedly, for determination of the aforesaid issues, it is required to be seen as to what is the exact consumption by the petitioner; whether the bills have been properly raised and whether the bill under Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 was raised in terms with the report, submitted by the Inspecting Team and in accordance with the Tariff or not. The aforesaid issues, depending on disputed facts, can not be determined by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As such, instead of giving any finding on the merit of the case, the petitioner is given liberty to raise the dispute before the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Jamshedpur Electricity Area, Jamshedpur. If any application is preferred by the petitioner before the said authority within a month, the authority will determine the claim on merit after taking into consideration the relevant facts and submissions. It will be open to the petitioner to ask for interim relief, if any, before the said authority. However, if no such application is preferred by the petitioner within the aforesaid period, it will be open to the respondent concerned to proceed in accordance with law. 7. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations. However, there shall be no order as to costs.