ORDER :

1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the communication dated 27.09.2021, by which, the Appellate Authority has refused to entertain the appeal and opine that there is no provision to condone delay and therefore the appeal filed beyond the period of 30 days in light of Section 127 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, cannot be entertained.

2. Taking into consideration the judgement of the Calcutta High Court in case of Sudipta Koley v. Smt. M Bhowmick and Anr. passed in WP No.84 of 2019 passed by the Division Bench on the question of whether Section 127 of the Indian Electricity Act provides for condonation of delay, the Division Bench held as under :

“35. Finally, adverting to section 127, we find that an appeal has to be filed within 30 (thirty) days. Neither does section 127 enlarge the period of limitation, as in section 125, nor does it confer power on the appellate authority, in similar vein as in section 111, to condone the delay in preferring an appeal (irrespective of the length of delay but subject of course to satisfaction that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal earlier). The concept of condonation of delay is completely absent insofar as section 127 is concerned.

36. Section 181(1) of the 2003 Act confers power on the State Commissions to frame regulations, not inconsistent with the provisions of the 2003 Act and the rules, to carry out the provisions of such Act subject also to the condition of a prior notification. Sub-section (2) of section 181 lists the matters in respect whereof regulations could be made by the State Commissions. Clause (zo) permits regulations to be brought into existence in respect of the form of preferring the appeal, the manner in which such form shall be verified and the fee for preferring the appeal under subsection (1) of section 127.

37. We have been shown the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 2013. Paragraphs 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 under Chapter III of such Regulations refers to matters as in clause (zo) of section 181(2). The Regulations also do not speak of power being conferred on an appellate authority exercising jurisdiction under section 127 to condone the delay in preferring an appeal, assuming that the State Commission has the power to so confer.

38. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (supra) is an authority for the proposition that the 2003 Act is a self-contained comprehensive legislation. Having read the provisions of the 2003 Act, to the extent relevant, and discussed the same in some detail, we are clear in our mind about the legislative intent that (i) section 5 of the 1963 Act in terms does not apply to an appeal under section 111 of the 2003 Act, although the principles underlying section 5 are applicable to such appeal; (ii) section 5 in terms does not have any applicability in respect of an appeal under section 125 of the 2003 Act, although the principles of section 5 could apply in an appropriate case where an appeal thereunder is preferred between 61 (sixty-one) and 120 (one hundred twenty) days of communication of the decision or order to the appellant and he seeks condonation of delay showing sufficient cause; (iii) neither the terms of nor the principles underlying section 5 have any application in respect of an appeal under section 127thereof. We also hasten to add that the fact of the 2003 Act not expressly excluding the provisions of the 1963 Act is of no relevance. If in the same Act, i.e. the 2003 Act, the legislature has consciously and expressly made provision for application of section 5 principles (section 111 and 125) and such a provision is not made for an appeal under section 127, it necessarily follows that the legislature did not intend to give such benefit in respect of an appeal under section 127. We hold so on the basis of the dicta of the Supreme Court decision reported in (2004) 4 SCC 252 [Gopal