Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The appellant/consumer was served with a letter No.SE/PEDC/PDKT/AO/R/D.No.073/2008 dated 25/21. 2003 by the respondent/Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (Pudukottai Electricity Distribution Circle) and the consequential bill dated 31. 2003. By the said letter, it was informed that the appellant had used arc furnace and for such consumption, it has to pay 25% excess of the consumed energy. The learned single Judge having rejected the writ petition, the present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 21. 2009 passed in W.P.No.4022 of 2003. 2. Before the learned single Judge, one of the pleas taken by the appellant was that the demand was not made immediately after issuance of G.O.Ms.No.30 dated 14. 2001 and after a much delay, the respondent/Board was not entitled to recover the amount. It is now submitted that before raising further supplementary bill with regard to the period for which already bill was served and demand was made, no notice or hearing was made by the respondent/Board. 3. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant referred to the Supreme Court decision in Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission v. Reliance Energy Ltd. [ (2007) 8 SCC 381 ], wherein having noticed the relevant alternative remedy under Sections 42(5) and (6) of the Electricity Act, the Supreme Court observed that before availing such remedy, it is desirable that the licensee (for brevity "Electricity Board") should give an opportunity to the consumer. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent/Board submitted that the appellant itself had informed that it has installed arc furnace and therefore, in terms with the orders and instructions, supplementary bills have been raised. However, he accepted that no notice was issued to the appellant before raising such supplementary bills, in addition to the energy bill for the period earlier raised and stated to have been paid by the appellant. 5. In the case of Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission v. Reliance Energy Ltd. [ (2007) 8 SCC 381 ], the Supreme Court, keeping in view the equity of the parties, thought it proper to direct the licensees/distribution companies of the State of Maharashtra to issue a general public notice in the newspaper and the persons aggrieved against supplementary/amendment bill were allowed to approach the licensees/distribution companies for redressal of their grievance within a stipulated period of such notice. The Supreme Court having noticed the alternative remedy under the Electricity Act, 2003 has observed as under: "22. The licensees/distribution companies shall decide the individual cases received by them after giving a fair opportunity of hearing to the consumers. The consumers who still feel not satisfied with the order passed by the licensees/distribution companies can approach the appropriate forum constituted under Section 42(5) of the Act and, if still not satisfied, with the order passed by the appropriate forum to approach the ombudsman under Section 42(6) of the Act. Accordingly, we hold that while the Commission had a power to issue general directions to prevent harassment to the public at large by its licensees/distribution companies, but a blanket direction to refund the amounts collected by the licensees/distribution companies which has been given by the Commission was not warranted. 23. Although, the appellate authority has set aside the order passed by the Commission and issued a direction that the individual consumers may approach the appropriate forums under Sections 42(5) and (6) we are not interfering with that direction, but we direct that before that the licensees/distribution companies shall hear the parties as directed hereinabove and decide whether the supplementary/amended bills issued by them are proper or not." 6. Following the decision rendered in the decision cited supra, we are of the view that the respondent/Board should also give an opportunity to the appellant. Accordingly, we allow the appellant to approach the first respondent/Superintending Engineer for redressal of its grievance, if any, against the supplementary bill/amended bill in question. However, if there is no arc furnace in the premises of the appellant where the supply of electricity is given, it may bring to the notice of the first respondent, who in his turn, may look into the document whether the appellant had earlier intimated to have an arc furnace in its premises and if necessary, after spot enquiry of the premises, shall pass an appropriate order within two weeks from the date of grievance as may be made by the appellant. The appellant should make such grievance before the first respondent within 15 days, failing which, the order passed by this Court shall stand recalled. 7. The appellant should make such grievance before the first respondent within 15 days, failing which, the order passed by this Court shall stand recalled. 7. If the appellant is still aggrieved by such order to be passed by the first respondent, it may move before the appropriate forum to avail the alternative remedy, in terms with the observation made by the Supreme Court in the decision cited supra. The writ petition shall stand disposed of with the aforesaid observation. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2009 is also dismissed.