JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The writ petitioner, on affidavit, has averred that, upon, the land owned, and, possessed by him, he, in the year 2009, hence, raised a three storied building, rather on the backside of the earlier constructed ground floor. Earlier to the three storied construction, being raised in the year 2009, by the writ petitioner, the petitioner had raised a ground floor, in the year 1990, and, an electricity connection qua therewith, became purveyed to him, in the year 1997. The newly raised three storied building, in the year 2009, as aforestated became raised, on the backside of the earlier thereto, construction of a ground floor, and, also it is averred that, the area whereons, it becomes raised, rather was not thereat, within the domain(s), of, the Town & Country Planing area, nor, hence any apposite approval(s), from, the competent authority, for, raising construction thereat, was required. 2. The respondents in their reply, meted to the writ petition, omitted to firmly contest, the afore averments, as, reared by the writ petitioner in his writ petition, (i) inasmuch as, appertaining to the apposite construction, being raised in the year 2009, and, thereat there being no necessity, under law, for, the meteing, of, approval(s), to the apposite building plans, rather by the competent authority. Contrarily, the respondents in their reply, merely make, a, contention, qua, under the relevant notification, issued on 30.5.2012, it becoming contemplated, qua there being no necessity, for, approvals, being meted by the competent authority, vis-a-vis, three stories, (ii) whereas, the petitioner raising four stories, hence, he became enjoined to, under law, obtain approval(s) for the additional storey, rather beyond three stories from the competent authority, (iii) and, since he omitted to purvey the afore approval(s), thereupon the electricity connection required thereto, being not amenable to be provided to him. 3. XXX XXX XXX 4. Tritely, hence with the respondents, omitting to forthrightly, deny the afore averments, vis-a-vis, in the year 2009, the petitioner on the backside of the earlier thereto, raised ground floor, in the year 1990, raising, a, three storeyed building, (i) and, also with their failing to completely deny, the averments, borne, paras No. 2, and, 3, of, the writ petition, hence making vivid displays, vis-a-vis, there being no necessity, vis-a-vis, approvals, being meted, for raising, of, building(s) in the areas, concerned, from the competent authority. Contrarily, theirs bringing- forth, a notification of 2012, hence making exemption(s), for raising of building(s), only upto three storeys, the inference as, ensues, therefrom, is, the respondents admitting, vis-a-vis, in the year 1990, the petitioners, raising, a ground floor, (a) and, thereafter his, in the year 2009, raising on the backside of the afore groud floor, three stories, hence, theirs also acquiescing, vis-a-vis, the area wherewithin(s), the afore stories, became raised, by the petitioner, rather not occurring, within the afore notification, issued by the competent authority, hence making it incumbent upon the petitioner, to obtain approval(s), for, the building plans, hence, from the competent authority. The concomitant sequel, thereof, is, qua, vis-a-vis, the afore years, rather the constructions, raised by the petitioner not requiring any meteings, of, any sanction, from the competent authority. 5. Be that as it may, the respondents, contend that with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum while dismissing complaint No. 380 of 2013, and, the petitioner's afore complaint, claiming similar hereat relief, (i) and, thereafter with the afore dismissal orders becoming affirmed, in an appeal, preferred thereagainst, before the learned Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (ii) hence, the extant remedy, is not a befitting remedy, (iii) rather the remedy available to the writ petitioner, is to cast a challenge upon the afore verdicts, rendered respectively, by the District Consumer Disputes Reddressal Forum, and, latter by the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, through his making a motion, before the learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. However, the afore plea, as, raised by the respondents, before this Court, cannot be accepted, as, dehors, the, existence, of, the afore alternative remedy hence available to the petitioner, this Court, cannot be fettered from exercising its writ jurisdiction, upon, gross and unwarranted breaches, becoming noticeably visited, upon, apposite rules, (iv) rather enjoining, or not enjoining, the applicability(ies), of, the apposite notification, qua, the area, whereat the petitioner has raised the afore construction. Since, breaches of the afore rules, and, of the afore notification, upsurge (v) from the respondents failing to deny, and, fully contest the averred factum of the writ petitioner, raising in the year 2009, the apposite construction, (vi) and, from theirs failing to contend, vis-a-vis, their being thereupto, any completest prohibition, against, raising of a four storeyed construction, by the petitioner, in the relevant area. Moreover, upon, lack, of, the afore completest denial, vis-a-vis, the afore foremost, relevant fact hence becoming combined, with the respondents' failing to establish, and, also failing to deny qua whereat, the relevant area occurs, it also hence falling within, the, the boundaries/zone, of, the Town & Country Planning, as, declared under the relevant notification, (vii) thereupon, the afore failings, reinforce the afore conclusion qua there being a gross mis application, of, the apposite notification, vis-a-vis, the area whereat, the relevant construction happened, (viii) and, also when thereupon, the concurrent orders, earlier made by the afore judicial fora, do not, upon, their readings, make any unfoldment(s), vis-a-vis, theirs appreciating the afore factum, (ix) thereupon, an inevitable sequel, becomes spurred qua, dehors the availability of an alternative remedy, reiteratedly, this Court becoming constrained, to, exercise its writ jurisdiction, for, therefrom, its making a review, of the untenable denial, meted by the respondents, to the writ petitioner. More so, and, imperatively, with the denial occurring, upon, a fallacious application, of, the relevant notification, as, issued under the relevant law, vis-a-vis, the area whereat, the, construction occurred. 6. Consequently, there is merit in the writ petition and the same is allowed, and, the respondents, are, directed to, in accordance with law, purvey the desired electricity connection to the petitioner's building. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.