IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 753 OF 1992 WRIT PETITION NO. 753 OF 1992 WRIT PETITION NO. 753 OF 1992. Western India Enterprises Ltd ..Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors ..Respondents. Mr J. M. Chitale, Advocate the petitioner. Mr A.I. Patel, A.G.P. for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr P. P. Chavan i/b Little & Co. Advocate for the Respondent No.5. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. V.C.DAGA, J. V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 14.01.2009. DATED: 14.01.2009. DATED: 14.01.2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and also the Respondents. Perused petition. 2. The Petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Sahyadri Sadan, Tilak Road, Pune. 3. The Petitioner has industrial unit located in Industrial Plot at village Dhatav, Roha, M.I.D.C. Estate, District Raigad. The energy supply to the said factory of the Petitioner was connected on 4.12.1980 and since then the Petitioner claims to have paid regularly electricity bill without any default. 4. The Petitioner was served with the supplementary demand vide letter No.1577 dated 20.2.1987 by the Superintendent Engineer (BRC), MSEB, Kalyan notifying his intention to recover amount of Rs. 3,19,680.72 from the Petitioner contending that the meter was faulty and that the Petitioner consumed electricity more than recorded in the meter. The petitioner raised a dispute and made reference to the Electrical Inspector, Thane-Respondent No.4 under Section 26(6) and 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The said dispute/reference was heard and decided by the Electrical Inspector holding that the supplementary bill from April, 1984 to February, 1986 for Rs. 3,19,680-72 ps charged by the M.S.E.B. upon the Petitioner was untenable and the same was set aside. 5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appeal was preferred by the M.S.E.B. before the State Government. Admittedly, the appeal was barred by Limitation. No application for condonation of delay was moved. The objection in this behalf was raised by the Petitioner. The Petitioner has also raised a written objection in this behalf and also filed ( 3 ) written submissions objecting to the tenability of the appeal. However, it appears that without giving any heed to the contentions raised by the Petitioner, the State Government entertained the appeal and partly set aside the order passed by Respondent no.4 - Electrical Inspector vide its order dated December, 1991. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned order of the State Government-Appellate Authority is bad and illegal being against the principles of natural justice and also for entertaining delayed appeal without condoning delay. He submits that no prayer for condonation of delay was made before the Appellate Authority. He further submits that the Appellate Authority did not apply its mind to the question of limitation and proceeded to allow this application. Hence he submits that the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondents fairly concede that the appeal was barred by limitation and no application for condonation of delay was made. In this view of the matter, admittedly, the appeal was barred by limitation. As ( 4 ) such, appeal was not tenable. Unless the delay is condoned, the Appellate Authority do not get jurisdiction to entertain and try the appeal in view of the judgment of the Division Bench this Court in the case of Mathuradas Mohta College of Science Nagpur Mathuradas Mohta College of Science Nagpur Mathuradas Mohta College of Science Nagpur vs R.T. Borkar and Ors 1997 (2) Mh.L.J. 163. vs R.T. Borkar and Ors 1997 (2) Mh.L.J. 163. vs R.T. Borkar and Ors 1997 (2) Mh.L.J. 163. In the result, the impugned order is unsustainable. The impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Respondent No.3 dated December, 1991 is quashed and set aside and the order dated 7.6.1988 passed by Electrical Inspector Division II, Thane is restored. Rule is made absolute in terms of this order. No order as to costs. (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)