1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5295 OF 2011 Hawrah Restaurant, Petitioner Vs The Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking .. and ors Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5294 OF 2011 Hotel New Bengal Petitioner Vs The Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking .. and ors Respondents Mr O.A.Siddiqui, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr Harinder Toor with Mr S.K.Chari i/b M.V.Kini & Co for respondent no.1 in both. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATE : 18/07/2011 PC: 1. Heard both sides. 2. The petitioners, in these petitions, are aggrieved by a communication refusing to entertain an appeal preferred by them. 3. It is the submission of the petitioners that the appellate T 2 authority should have entertained the appeals as they have complied with all pre-conditions under section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003. On the other hand, Mr Toor appearing on behalf of the BEST, submits that the letter addressed by the petitioners to the authority cannot be treated as an appeal. Secondly, there is no compliance of sub-section (2) of Section 127 of the Act. Thirdly, now there is default committed and, therefore, interest starts running and the petitioners must comply with sub-section (6) of Section 127 of the Act. 4. Having perused the order under challenge, I am of the view that the appellate authority was in no error because the petitioners did not file an appeal as contemplated by sub-section (1) of Section 127 of the Act. Even if a format in which the appeal is to be filed cannot be construed as mandatory, yet, what is filed must be an appeal. A mere communication from a party, like the petitioner, cannot be treated as appeal in this case. In these circumstances, interest of justice would be served with direction that if the petitioners comply with section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003, inasmuch as they file appropriate appeal in the format and also comply with section 127 of the Act, the appellate authority shall proceed to decide the appeal in accordance with law after hearing both sides. If no compliance is made the impugned order stands and the respondents could resort to coercive measure to recover the balance amount under 3 the orders of assessment. All contentions of both sides on limitation, maintainability of the proceedings as also on merits, are kept open. The petitions are disposed of. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.) 4