IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 906 of 2008 (M/S) M/s Quest, A unit of Ghungroo Restaurant, through its Proprietor Mr. Bharat Bhatia, R/O 7-B, Astley Hall, Dehradun- 248001. …… Petitioner. Versus Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited through its Chairman and Managing Director, Dehradun and another. …Respondents. Sri T.A.Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Lokpal Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. Date June 04, 2008 Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Sri T.A.Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Lokpal Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. This writ petition has been filed for issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to continue the electricity supply in the premises of the petitioner situated at House No. 7-B, Astley Hall, Dehradun on connection No. 097861 and they may also be directed to instal a new meter thereon. Learned counsel for the respondents Sri Lokpal Singh has raised a preliminary objection that alternate remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of alternate remedy. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the case of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. v. Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd. [AIR, 2008 Supreme Court, 1942] wherein it has been held that “therefore, now by virtue of sub-section (5) of Section 42 of the Act, all the individual grievances of consumers have to be raised before this forum only.” On the ground of alternate remedy, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The petitioner may approach the forum created under sub-section (5) of Section 42 of the Electricity Act. The writ petition is dismissed in limine on the ground of alternate remedy. (B.S. Verma, J.) RCP