IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5660 of 2011 Between: M/s. M.B. Smelters Pvt., Ltd., Hindupur, Anantapur District. ..... Petitioner AND The Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, rep., by its Managing Director, Hyderabad & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu Counsel for the respondents: Sri O. Manohar Reddy The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5660 of 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in calculating the annual load factor of the petitioner for the years 2008-09 and 2009-10 without excluding the non-supply period, as highly illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to set aside letter dated 11.02.2011 of respondent No.3. At the hearing, it is not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties that the A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission has constituted alternative dispute resolution mechanism by creating Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and Ombudsman in terms of Section 42 (5) and (6) of the Electricity Act, 2003 vide Regulation No.1 of 2004. Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that constitution of the said fora shall be without prejudice to the petitioner’s right to avail any other remedy that may be available, which they may have to it. While it is true that the consumers have option to avail any other remedy, the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being discretionary in nature, I am not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition, which involves various pleas touching the facts relating to alleged non-supply of power to the petitioner. As separate fora are created by the regulatory commission for the purpose of resolution of such disputes as are raised in this Writ Petition, I do not find any reason why the petitioner shall not avail the said remedies. Even though this Court has entertained Writ Petition No.10152 of 2009 filed raising a similar issue, a perusal of the interim order passed therein does not show that the availability of the alternative remedies was brought to the notice of this Court. For the abovementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed without going into the merits of the case with liberty to the petitioner to avail the aforementioned remedies. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.7058 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 16.03.2011 ES