ORDER Dr. R.R. Misra, J. - During the crushing season 1985-86 the petitioner ran a crusher on option basis. The Khandsari Inspector raised a demand in respect of the month of March, 1984. Aggrieved against the same the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Sugar Commissioner. The said appellate authority by his impugned order dated 14-2-1986, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner as not maintainable on the ground that two copies of the memo of appeal was not filed as required under Rule 24 of the U. P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Rules 1961. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The relevant portion of Rule 24 of the U. P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Rules 1961 reads as under: "24. Appeal........................... (3) The memorandum of appeal shall be accompanied by an attested copy of the order of assessment or imposing penalty ora notice of demand of interest, if any." 3. From a perusal of the above it is evident that the law does not oblige an appellant to submit two copies of the memorandum of appeal also at the time of filing of the appeal. The same is not a condition precedent for entertainment of appeal. No appeal without such copies will become bad in law. Therefore, non-filing of two copies along with memorandum of appeal is not fatal. In my opinion, the furnishing of two copies of the memorandum of appeal along with the memorandum of appeal is not mandatory and the appeal cannot be dismissed on that ground. The said defect is a curable defect and an appeal cannot be dismissed for want of duplicate copy of memorandum of appeal. On the other hand, it was obligatory on the part of the appellate authority to have afforded an opportunity to the petitioner to supply the aforesaid two copies of the memorandum of appeal in question. Admittedly in the present case no such opportunity was given to the assessee by the appellate authority. Hence also the impugned order passed by the appellate authority cannot be sustained in law and is liable to be set aside. 4. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed with costs. Admittedly in the present case no such opportunity was given to the assessee by the appellate authority. Hence also the impugned order passed by the appellate authority cannot be sustained in law and is liable to be set aside. 4. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed with costs. The impugned order dated 14-2-87 passed by the Deputy Sugar Commissioner is set aside with the direction to decide the appeal in question afresh in IS accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above.