JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K.M. Shukla for the respondent No.2 and the learned Chief Standing Counsel, who has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 3. 2. The petitioner was found to have indulged into a theft of electricity as a consequence whereof a case under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, was booked against him. On the request of the petitioner, a criminal proceedings were compounded on a payment of Rs. 1,90,000/-, which the petitioner is said to have deposited. The civil liability of the petitioner also appears to have been assessed under Section 126 of the Electricity Act in furtherance whereof the impugned recovery is resorted to. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the provisional assessment order was not served upon him despite several representations. The impugned recovery is being carried out without service of such a provisional assessment. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondents Sri K.M. Shukla has submitted that it is open to the petitioner to approach the competent authority for being furnished with the original assessment order which shall be handed over to him within 2 days. The petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003, for filing an appeal against the assessment made under Section 126 of the Act. Since the alternative remedy is available to the petitioner for redressal of his grievances and the case be clearly of the nature of theft of electricity, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy available to him under the law. 5. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.