1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2392 OF 2009 Reliance Industries Limited and another ).. Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ).. Respondents Mr. Aspi Chinoy a/w Mr. Chirag Balsara i/b M/s Junnarkar & Associates for the Petitioners. Mr. V.A. Sonpal, A-Panel Advocate, for the State. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND A.M. KHANWILKAR, J. DATED : 24TH SEPTEMBER 2009 P.C. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent State takes an objection that there is a statutory alternative remedy available to the Petitioners and as such this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We find merits in this submission. However, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that they will file the Appeal, but the limitation provided under Section 7A of the Bombay Electricity Duty Act, 1958 has expired as the Petitioners were prosecuting their remedy before this Court. He also relies upon the interim order passed by another Division Bench of this Court on 18th February 2009. 2 2. In view of the above, we dispose of this Writ Petition with liberty to the Petitioners to file Appeal in accordance with law. The said Appeal shall be decided on its own merits and not to be thrown out on the ground of delay. Further, we would expect the concerned authority to hear the Appeal expeditiously and pass appropriate orders within four weeks from the filing of the Appeal. In the meanwhile, the order dated 18th February 2009 shall continue, subject to such orders as may be passed by the concerned authority or till one week after passing of the order by the concerned authority. If the order is adverse to the interest of the Petitioners, but for the period stated hereinabove, the amounts will be liable to be paid. 3. Writ Petition disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.