JUDGMENT : 1. The instant petition seeks to challenge the order passed by respondent no. 2 on 31.5.2022, deciding the representation of the petitioner in respect of his grievance regarding erection of two electricity towers through his agricultural holding. 2. Learned counsel for respondent no. 3 submitted that the impugned order was passed by respondent no. 2 in exercise of power under Rule 3(2) of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006. He submitted that the order passed by him is subject to revision by the appropriate Commission, as provided under Rule 3(3). It is urged that the petitioners have thus an alternative efficacious remedy and therefore, this Court may decline to entertain the challenge. 3. Sri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, tried to contend that the impugned order was passed by respondent no. 2 under the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. 4. We have perused the impugned order and we find that the decision taken by respondent no. 2 squarely falls under Rule 3(2) of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 and is thus revisable by appropriate Commission, which is the State Regulatory Commission, constituted under Section 82 of the Electricity Act, 2003. 5. Accordingly, we decline to entertain the challenge and relegate the petitioner to the alternative remedy available under the Rules. 6. In the end, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents be directed to maintain status quo for a short period, to facilitate filing of revision by the petitioner. 7. Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation, states that according to his instructions, the towers have already been erected. 8. Be that as it may, we hereby direct that status quo as on date, shall be maintained for a period of two weeks from today. 9. The order has been passed in the presence of Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 4 and 5.