JUDGEMENT Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Though the matter has been taken up under the heading "FOR ORDER (ON PETITIONS)" on the basis of the LA. No. 4446 of 2009 but taking into consideration the legal position as enumerated in the case of M/s Bikaner Plasto Flex Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2009 (3) PLJR 12 , no purpose will be served by keeping the writ application pending any further at this stage. 3. This writ application itself is being disposed of with liberty to petitioner that he shall file the present application before the designated authority under the purported provision of Section 42(5) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 with regard to the dispute of AMG bill which is the subject matter in the present writ application within a week and thereafter the designated authority under the Act would be required to decide the matter after hearing the parties within a reasonable time frame, if not within the statutory period as laid down in this regard. 4. Today a supplementary affidavit has been filed wherein electric connection of the petitioner stands restored on the basis of payment of current monthly charge. Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that this arrangement should continue till the final adjudication is made by the competent authority and no coercive action should be taken against the petitioner for payment of disputed amount at this stage. 5. Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner seems to be fair enough. Since the matter is being relegated to the jurisdiction of the respondent authority, it will be in their interest to adjudicate the matter at the earliest. Petitioner thereafter may be at liberty either to comply the order or move the higher forum as the case may be on the outcome of the said decision. 6. This writ application along with I.A. No. 4446 of 2009 stand disposed of with the above liberty.