1. The petitioner Mr. Vinod Kumar Jain has filed this writ petition, which involves interpretation of Rule 57 of the Electricity Rules, 1956 as to when an electricity meter can be regarded as defective.

2. The respondents in their counter affidavit to the writ petition did not raise any objection as to maintainability of the writ petition on the

ground of alternative remedy under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003, being available to the petitioner but during the course of arguments an objection to this effect was raised. However, I am not inclined to entertain the said objection at this belated stage as the writ petition was filed in 2005. Moreover, alternative remedy is not an absolute bar and a Writ Court has discretion, whether or not to entertain the Writ or relegate the parties to take recourse to alternative remedy. As legal interpretation of Rule 57 of the Electricity Rules, 1956 arises for consideration, I do not think it will be appropriate to dismiss the writ petitions on the ground of alternative remedy and at this belated stage relegate the parties and force them to go before the Grievance Forum and Ombudsman and thereafter approach this Court