JUDGMENT Hon'ble Rakesh Srivastava,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prashant Arora, learned counsel for the Power Corporation. 2. Sri Prashant Arora, Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of the Power Corporation has not disputed the fact that a domestic electricity connection has been installed in the premises of the petitioner and thereafter necessary bills for the electricity consumed by the petitioner was disputed. 3. The dispute has been raised by the petitioner with regard to the aforesaid bill and as such without depositing the requisite bills the petitioner approach this Hon'ble Court. A preliminary objection has been raised by Sri Prashant Arora, learned counsel for the Power Corporation that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner is having efficacious an alternative remedy to avail the provision of 6.5 (b) of the U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2005 and file a complaint in accordance with law before the authority concerned. 4. In view of the above, the writ petition is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed on the ground alternative remedy.