IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1902 of 2010 (M/S) Devbhoomi Dharamshala Prabandhak Sabha having its registered office At Narsingh Bhawan, Upper Road Haridwar, through its General Secretary Sri Kailash Chand Sharma. ……Petitioner Versus 1. Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission, having its office at First Floor, Institution of Engineers (India) Near ISBT Majra, Dehradun Through its Chairperson. 2. Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited Garhwal Zone, 120-Haridwar Road Dehradun, through Its Managing Director. …….Respondents Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya, Advocate for respondents. Dated:-11-11-2010 Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:- “1. To summon the complete record pertaining to the case. 2. To issue the writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Tariff Order (Annexure 3) passed by respondent No. 1 whereby the Dharamshalas/Charitable Religious Institutions (those which are not registered under Income Tax Act, 1961 & are not exempted from Income Tax) have been put into commercial category. 2 3. To issue the writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No. 2 to adjust the excess amount charged by them under the impugned tariff order in future. 4. To issue any other suitable order or direction as this Hon’ble court may deem fit & proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. To award the cost of the petition to the petitioner.” Learned counsel for respondents raised preliminary objection on the ground that an appeal under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003, can be preferred by the petitioner before appellate tribunal to assail the impugned tariff order, passed under Section 64 of Electricity Act, 2003. Therefore, the petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy available to the petitioner under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to assail the order before appellate tribunal. (B.S.Verma, J.) 11-11-2010 S