Krishna Murari, J.

We have heard Sri Mayank Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Chandan Agrawal for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order/letter dated 14-05-2012 issued by the respondent no. 2 informing the petitioner that there was no infirmity in the provisional bill and to pay the outstanding arrears as well as the order dated 29-03-2014 rejecting the representation made against the provisional assessment.

3. A preliminary objection has been raised by learned counsel for the respondents regarding maintainability of this petition on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy to the petitioner of filing an appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (in short the 'Act').

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner refuting the argument of the respondents submitted that in the facts and circumstances where the matter has traveled up to this Court and the assessing authority has rejected the claim of the petitioner once again, there is no justification to relegate the petitioner back to the alternative remedy of appeal. He also submitted that alternative remedy is not an