JUDGMENT 1. appellant herein is a Company which claims to be manufacturing gas. The Company filed a writ petition, being CWJC No. 1346/2000(R), for quashing an order dated 21st April, 2000 passed by the General Manager-Cum-Chief Engineer. Jamshedpur Area Electricity Board, disposing of a representation filed by the writ petitioner appellant pursuant to an earlier order passed on 28.01.2000 in CWJC No. 3625/1999 (R). By the impugned order the said respondent held that there was prima facie allegation of theft of energy against the petitioner as a reason whereof Clause 16.9 of Tariff Rules was attracted in the writ petitioners case. The appellant-writ petitioner also prayed for quashing of the bills raised pursuant to the said order dated 21st April, 2000 on the ground that the same had been raised in contravention of the directions given in the impugned order and also Clause 16.9 of the 1993 Tariff Rules. 2. The appellant-writ petitioner also prayed for a direction to restore supply to its factory as the same had been disconnected on 3rd December, 1999 on the basis of an inspection report prepared on the same day by a team of officials of the Jamshedpur Area Electricity Board. 3. According to the appellant, the writ petitioner-Company had by a letter dated 1st November, 1999 informed the Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Gamaharia, Sub-Station No. III, Jamshedpur that the outside seal bearing No. 048442 of CT/PT had rusted and fallen down and requested that the same be attended to. According to the appellant-Company, pursuant to such information an inspection was conducted in the premises of the appellant Company on 3rd December, 1999 on the basis whereof an FIR was lodged on 3rd December, 1999, itself, alleging theft of electricity by the appellant-Company. After the FIR was lodged, a bill was raised by the aforesaid Board for a sum of Rs. 71,51,351/- which was challenged by the appellant Company in CWJC No. 3625/1999(R). An interim order was passed in the said writ application on 22nd December, 1999 whereby the Board was directed to restore supply subject to the condition that the appellant-Company deposited a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs. The said order was subsequently modified when the writ petition was disposed of on 28th January, 2000 and a direction was made that if the appellant-Company deposited a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs. The said order was subsequently modified when the writ petition was disposed of on 28th January, 2000 and a direction was made that if the appellant-Company deposited a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs then the line would be immediately restored and the balance sum of Rs. 5 lakhs would have to be deposited within 30 days thereafter. There is no dispute that the firm deposited a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs. The supply was ultimately restored and the appellant Company is still enjoying such supply on payment of a further sum of Rs. 3 lakhs pursuant to an order dated 13th May, 2003 passed in the instant appeal. 4. While disposing of the writ application this Court quashed the bill for Rs. 71,51,351/- and gave liberty to the Board to raise bill after giving an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner which is the appellant Company before us. The appellant Company was directed to file a representation before the General Manager Cum Chief Engineer, Jharkhand Area Electricity Board, within a week from the date of passing of the order and upon receipt thereof the General Manager was directed to consider the said representation and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant Company. 5. It appears that the representation of the appellant-Company was disposed of by the said General Manager but without really deciding the issues raised by the appellant Company mainly on the ground that the matter was pending before the Criminal Court. The General Manager, however, rectified the bill in question and reduced the same to Rs. 16,51,690/-. 6. Despite such reduction the appellant-Company filed another writ application, being CWJC No. 1346/2000 (R), questioning the manner in which the bill had been reduced to Rs. 16,51,690/-. It was the contention of the appellant-Company that in the event the General Manager had gone into the other issues raised on behalf of the appellant-Company, the bill would have been reduced to Zero since the question of pilferage did not at all arise. 7. The learned single Judge however, disposed of the writ application by observing that since the amount had been subsequently reduced the appellant Company could not go on raising the same objection over and over again, particularly when the matter relating to theft of energy was sub-judice before the Criminal Court. 7. The learned single Judge however, disposed of the writ application by observing that since the amount had been subsequently reduced the appellant Company could not go on raising the same objection over and over again, particularly when the matter relating to theft of energy was sub-judice before the Criminal Court. Aggrieved by the decision of the learned single Judge the appellant Company has filed the instant appeal. Appearing in support thereof Mr. Joy Saha, learned Advocate, submitted that from the order of the General Manager itself it would be clear that the General Manager has avoided all the issues of technical nature which had been raised on behalf of the appellant Company and that he only chose to correct the bill on the basis of a calculation which appears to have been erroneously made and which immediately reduced the bill from Rs. 71,51,351/ to Rs. 16,51,690/-. 8. Mr. Saha urged that the learned single Judge appears to have over looked the fact that none of the other issues had been addressed by the General Manager on the ground that the matter was sub-judice before a Criminal Court of competent jurisdiction. Mr. Saha submitted that despite the directions which had been given in the earlier writ application the matter had not been properly considered and in fact except for correcting the mathematical error nothing else was looked into by the person directed to dispose of the appellant Companys representation. 9. Appearing for the Board, Mr. Delip Jerath submitted that the General Manager had no option but to decide the matter in such fashion since the matter was pending before the Criminal Court which could decide the issues raised by the appellant Company in its representation. Mr. Jerath submitted that there was no other forum available which could decide such question and that the Court also was not competent to look into the technical aspects which had been raised on behalf of the appellant Company. However, during course of submissions it transpired that in a Public Interest Litigation this Court had constituted a Forum to decide such disputes known as Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Ranchi, which had been entrusted with the object of deciding the disputes of this nature which could not be decided by the Courts. However, during course of submissions it transpired that in a Public Interest Litigation this Court had constituted a Forum to decide such disputes known as Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Ranchi, which had been entrusted with the object of deciding the disputes of this nature which could not be decided by the Courts. There is no doubt that the issues raised on behalf of the writ petitioner raised certain disputed questions which require a certain amount of technical expertise for decision. It is no doubt true, as submitted by Mr. Jerath, that the Criminal Court would have a chance to decide such issues, but there is also no denial of the fact that in a criminal case the defence is normally not called upon to lead evidence in its defence and it is the prosecution which is required to prove its case. It is possibly for such a precise reason that the alternative Forum was formed by the Court in a Public Interest Litigation. 10. We, therefore, dispose of the appeal by setting aside the order passed by the learned single Judge and referring the dispute which has been raised on behalf of the appellant Company to the aforesaid Forum for a decision as expeditiously as possible. The appellant Company will be at liberty to file a fresh representation before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Ranchi within a week from date. The Forum shall enter upon the reference within a week of receipt of the said representation and upon notice to the parties dispose of the same within two months thereafter. A copy of the representation to be made to the Forum is to be made available to the respondent Board when it is filed with the Forum. The decision of the Forum will be confined to the questions of the issues raised by the appellant Company with regard to the allegations of tampering and theft. The Forum will decide the said questions notwithstanding the pendency of the matter before the Criminal Court, and, on the other hand, the findings of the Forum may be used in the criminal proceedings. Needless to say, the appellant Company will go on paying the current bills as and when raised and the question of payment of balance of the reduced bill would be subject to the final decision of the Forum. There will be no order as to costs. 11. Needless to say, the appellant Company will go on paying the current bills as and when raised and the question of payment of balance of the reduced bill would be subject to the final decision of the Forum. There will be no order as to costs. 11. The parties are directed to communicate this order to the Forum along with a copy of the representation and for the said purpose a copy of this order may be made available to the learned Advocates of both the parties.