Order During pendency of this writ application, petitioner has filed Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 3804/2010, wherein he prayed for amendment of the writ application by quashing the final assessment order (Annexure-9) and the bill (Annexure-10) issued on the basis of aforesaid final assessment order. 2. The said amendment has been allowed vide order dated 03.11.2010. 3. It appears from the orders dated 17.02.2010 and 03.11.2010 that petitioner-company had deposited altogether Rs. 10,00,000/- (rupees ten lacs) as an ad interim measure, accordingly, electricity connection of petitioner's premises restored. 4. The brief facts of this case is that on 27.01.2010, a surprise inspection conducted by a team of Jharkhand State Electricity Board in the factory premises of the petitioner-company and it was found that seals of the meter, installed in the factory premises, has been tempered. During inspection, reading in the display of the Meter was noted and then instant clamp tester applied to the LT Cable, passing through the C.T (current transformer) Box and it was found that in fact, petitioner-company was extracting 65 Amps current, whereas previous meter reading shows that the petitioner company was extracting 12 Amps. current. According to the inspection report, suppression was about 1/5th of actual consumption and the meter was showing aforesaid suppression due to planting of extra device in the meter. Accordingly, first information report lodged against the petitioner-company on the same day and a provisional assessment bill of Rs.25,30,318/- (Annexure-3) issued against the petitioner-company. When petitioner-company did not pay the aforesaid amount, the electric connection of the petitioner's premises disconnected. The said provisional order has been challenged in this writ application. 5. At the time of hearing of this writ application, under the heading "For Admission", a Bench of this Court passed order that petitioner-company shall deposit Rs. 3,00,000/- with the respondents-Board within two weeks and if such deposit is made, then the electric connection of the petitioner-company be restored. This Court further given opportunity to the petitioner-company to file objection to the provisional assessment but prohibited the authority of the electricity board from doing final assessment by applying the formula of L x H x F x D. 6. It appears that petitioner-company has filed objection on 08.03.2010 (Annexure-7 to the I.A.). This Court further given opportunity to the petitioner-company to file objection to the provisional assessment but prohibited the authority of the electricity board from doing final assessment by applying the formula of L x H x F x D. 6. It appears that petitioner-company has filed objection on 08.03.2010 (Annexure-7 to the I.A.). It further appears that the concern authority, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-company, had passed order as contained in Annexure-9, whereby the authority of the Electricity Board finally assessed that the petitioner has committed theft of electricity to the tune of Rs. 41,52,608.00 and accordingly, directed him to pay the said amount, which has been challenged by way of amendment. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner-company that the Assessing Authority has no power to make final assessment by applying the formula as mentioned in the final assessment order and thus, final assessment is arbitrary and against the Electricity Supply Code Regulation, as amended in the month of September, 2010. Thus, it is submitted that the final assessment order cannot be sustained. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned standing counsel of Electricity Company submits that this Court vide order dated 17.02.2010 had directed the Assessing Authority to make assessment ignoring the formula LxH xFxD, therefore, the Assessing Authority had applied another formula for assessing pilferage of electricity, which is fair and reasonable. He submits that this court gave aforesaid direction on the submission of petitioner that assessing authority has no power to make assessment applying the formula of LxHxFxD. Thus, now petitioner can not take plea that electricity company should do assessment on the basis of LxHxFxD as provided under Electricity Supply Code Regulation . It is further submitted that final assessment order can be challenged by the petitioner-company before the Special Court as per the provisions contained under section 154 (5 and 6) of the Electricity Act 2003. Learned counsel further submitted that Judgment of Division Bench in Shyam Lal Iron and Steel Company. Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board, reported in 2013 (3) J.B.C.J-356(HC), which has been confirmed by the Supreme Court will apply in this case. 9. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the records of the case. 10. Admittedly, this is a case of theft, thus, the provisions contained under section 135 of the Electricity Act will apply. 9. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the records of the case. 10. Admittedly, this is a case of theft, thus, the provisions contained under section 135 of the Electricity Act will apply. 11. In Shyam Lal Iron and Steel Company. Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board, (Supra) at paragraph no.35, the Division Bench held that statutory remedy against the order of final assessment is available to the appellant under section 154 ( 5 ) of the Act. Therefore, it is not a fit case where any order should be passed interfering with the assessment order passed after giving opportunity of hearing to the appellant and the same is subject matter of Special Court, where case of theft is pending. 12. It is worth mentioning that against the judgment of Division Bench, a Special Leave Petition has been filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 27328/2013, which was dismissed on 23.09.2013 and the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court has become final. Under the said circumstance, the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court is binding upon this Court. 13. In the instant case, as noticed above, before passing the final assessment order, as directed by this Court, the petitioner-company had been given opportunity of hearing. Under the said circumstance, if petitioner has any grievance against the said order, he can file an application before the Special Judge for final determination of the amount and the Special Judge has the power to make final order. Thus, in view of statutory alternative remedy this writ application is not maintainable. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. 14 The petitioner-company is directed to pay the remaining assessed amount as contained in Annexure-9 within one month from today. If the said amount is not deposited, then it is open for the Electricity Board and/or concern company to take all coercive steps, including the steps for disconnection of the electric connection against the petitioner-company for realization of the said amount. Petition dismissed.