THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.32720 of 2010 DT.27.12.2010 Between: Kasukurthi Sundararao … Petitioner And The Chairman & Managing Director, APSPDCL, Srinivasapuram, Tirupathi, Chittoor District and others … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri G.L.Nageswara Rao Counsel for respondents: Sri O.Manohar Reddy The Court made the following ORDER: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in disconnecting power supply to the petitioner’s service connection bearing No.96751 to his house bearing D.No.5-98-58/8c, Beckor’s Compound, A.E.L.Church Compound, Main Road, Brodipet, Guntur, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to restore power supply. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner has averred that he is in occupation of a shed belonging to A.E.L.Church, Guntur with the permission of its owner and has been using the same for residential purpose by paying rent of Rs.200/- per month from 31.03.2000. That on his paying security deposit of Rs.2,225/- on 14.07.2008, power supply was released with the above- mentioned service connection. He has further averred that respondent No.4 has disconnected the power supply without prior notice and that on his request, a meter was installed on 16.04.2010 and power supply was restored. That on 21.04.2010, respondent No.4 has again disconnected the power supply, aggrieved by which action, the petitioner has approached the District Consumer Forum, Guntur by way of C.C.No.187 of 2010 and the said case is pending. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking restoration of power supply. In my opinion, having already availed a remedy before the competent forum, the petitioner cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that the District Consumer Forum, which entertained his complaint, is not competent to grant the relief claimed in this writ petition. The law is well settled that a person cannot avail parallel remedies. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the remedy already availed by him. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.41583 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date: 27.12.2010 VGB