JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. R. Abdul Mubeen, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. G. Vasudevan, learned standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. P. Rathanavel, learned counsel for the third respondent. 2. In this writ petition, a direction has been sought for by the petitioner to direct the first respondent to restore electricity connection of her property in S.C.No.145-23-132 immediately. 3. According to the petitioner, her husband Mohamed Abdul Azeem was the lawful owner of the land and building situated at Old No.41, New No.9/1, Sheikh Mohideen Subedar Street, Perambur, Chennai-12, comprised in R.S.No.2778/61, Block No.42, measuring an extent of 736 sq.ft.. From the date of acquiring the said property, he had been in possession. Subsequently, her husband settled the said property in her favour vide Settlement Deed dated 01.7.1999, registered as Document No.2267 of 1999. Thereafter, she mortgaged the above said property and obtained a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as loan from the third respondent, for which she executed a mortgage deed and handed over the title deeds to the third respondent. As the third respondent cheated the petitioner by converting the mortgage deed into a sale deed, the petitioner has filed a civil suit in C.S.No.952 of 2009 to declare that the said sale deed as null and void before this Court and the same was renumbered as O.S.No.9935 of 2010 and is pending on the file of the I Additional Fast Track Court, Chennai. The petitioner further states that she is in continuous possession of the property and has been paying property tax, water tax as well as electricity charges. According to the petitioner, when she went to pay electricity consumption charges, the second respondent refused to receive the same, as the electricity service connection stands in the name of the third respondent. Aggrieved by the same, she earlier filed a writ petition in W.P.No.26940 of 2010 and this Court, by order dated 16.10.2010, disposed of the said writ petition directing the respondents therein to pass orders based on the result of the civil suit pending in C.S.No.952 of 2008. While so, the first respondent disconnected the electricity service connection of the petitioner's premises for nonpayment of the consumption charges Hence, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking restoration of electricity service connection. 4. While so, the first respondent disconnected the electricity service connection of the petitioner's premises for nonpayment of the consumption charges Hence, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking restoration of electricity service connection. 4. To the above claim of the petitioner, respondents 1 and 2 have filed a counter-affidavit stating that the petitioner's service connection no.145-032-132 was disconnected on 01.10.2010 for non-payment of current consumption charges for the period from June to August 2010, amounting to Rs.37,408/-and that the Executive Engineer/APTS, on surprise inspection on 30.3.2012 at about 12.30 hours, found that the service connection was unauthorisedly re-connected to the main, thereby the petitioner committed the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the extra levy was worked out to Rs.2,03,140/-. It is further stated in the counter that the petitioner neither challenged the said provisional assessment imposing an extra levy of Rs.2,03,140/-, nor given a reply to the show cause notice. It is also stated that pursuant to the interim order of this Court, the respondents have restored the service connection on payment of Rs.80,000/-and therefore they prayed for dismissal of the writ petition, as it is not maintainable. 5. The impleaded third respondent has filed her counter-affidavit stating that the petitioner executed a registered sale deed dated 23.7.2008, registered as document No.195/2008, on receiving the entire sale consideration and when she demanded possession of the property, the petitioner filed the civil suit. She has also stated that it is only the civil court which is going to decide the issue whether the petitioner has executed the sale deed or her signature was fraudulently obtained in the sale deed instead of mortgage deed and when the civil suit is pending, the action taken by respondents 1 and 2 for non-payment of consumption charges is in accordance with law. 6. It is seen that a suit in O.S. No. 9935 of 2010 on the file of V Additional Fast Track Court, Chennai is pending between the petitioner and the third respondent. 6. It is seen that a suit in O.S. No. 9935 of 2010 on the file of V Additional Fast Track Court, Chennai is pending between the petitioner and the third respondent. Respondents 1 and 2 claim that the petitioner's service connection was disconnected on 01.10.2010 for non-payment of current consumption charges for the period from June to August 2010, amounting to Rs.37,408/-and thereafter, on surprise inspection, it was found that the service connection was unauthorisedly reconnected to the main, thereby committed the offence as per Section 135 of the Electricity Act and an extra levy was worked out to Rs.2,03,140/- by making a provisional assessment. The petitioner neither challenged the provisional assessment nor replied to the show cause notice, but filed the present writ petition. 7. The petitioner has moved this Court only for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to restore the electricity service connection. This Court, by order dated 19.4.2012, directed respondents 1 to 2 to restore power supply subject to payment of Rs.80,000/-i.e. Rs.50,000/- forthwith and the balance of Rs.30,000/- on or before 31.5.2012 and on payment of Rs.50,000/-, electricity connection shall be restored. In the counter of respondents 1 and 2, it is stated that the petitioner has paid Rs.80,000/- and respondents 1 and 2 have restored electricity service connection to the petitioner's premises. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner did not challenge the provisional assessment, imposing a sum of Rs.2,03,140/- as extra levy. When there is an alternative remedy, the petitioner before filing a writ petition, should have availed the same. Therefore, the petitioner shall file her objections to the provisional assessment before the appropriate authority, who, on receipt of the same, will consider and pass final assessment order. In view of the urgency in the matter, electricity service connection was restored to the petitioner's premises on payment of conditional amount. Therefore, the relief sought for by the petitioner was granted. However, the said restoration is subject to the result of the writ petition. As there was a provisional assessment, the petitioner shall work out his remedy as per the provisions contemplated under the Act. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioner to file her objections to the provisional assessment, levying a penalty of Rs.2,03,140/- before the concerned authority, who will consider the same and pass final assessment order. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioner to file her objections to the provisional assessment, levying a penalty of Rs.2,03,140/- before the concerned authority, who will consider the same and pass final assessment order. It is needless to say that the petitioner and the third respondent shall work out their remedy in the civil suit pending between them. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2012 is closed.