Judgment G.S. Sarraf , J.-Heard Shri Virendra Lodha learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. R.P. Garg learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 and Shri G.C. Garg learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 on the application of the Respondent No. 1 under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacation of ad-interim ex-parte stay order granted by this Court on 12.06.2006. 2. Respondent No. 1 filed a complaint before the Respondent No. 2 praying inter alia that the demand raised by the petitioners to the tune of Rs. 6,30,107.65 be declared null and void. After hearing the rival contentions of both the parties the learned Ombudsman (Respondent No. 2) passed the following order on 01.02.2006:- 3. Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioners filed appeal before the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission, Jaipur. The Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission, Jaipur disposed of the appeal by order dated 03.06.2006 holding that the Commission would not interfere with the order of the Ombudsman as the Commission had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal against the order of the Ombudsman deciding the dispute between consumer and licensee. Hence the petitioners filed this petition. 4. Mr. R.P. Garg learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 has submitted that since the petitioners have got alternative efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 111(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), therefore, the stay order granted by this Court may be vacated. Mr. G.C. Garg learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 has supported the above contention. Mr. Virendra Lodha learned Counsel for the petitioners has said that since the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission, Jaipur has made lack of jurisdiction the basis of its order, therefore, the petitioners have been left with no alternative except to approach this Court by filing a writ. 5. Section 111(1) of the Act reads as under:- "111. Mr. Virendra Lodha learned Counsel for the petitioners has said that since the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission, Jaipur has made lack of jurisdiction the basis of its order, therefore, the petitioners have been left with no alternative except to approach this Court by filing a writ. 5. Section 111(1) of the Act reads as under:- "111. (1) Any person aggrieved by an order made by an adjudicating officer under this Act (except under Section 127) or an order made by the appropriate Commission under this Act may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal For Electricity: Provided that any person appealing against the order of the adjudicating officer levying any penalty shall, while filing the appeal, deposit the amount of such penalty: Provided further that where in any particular case, the Appellate Tribunal is of the opinion that the deposit of such penalty would cause undue hardship to such person, it may dispense with such deposit subject to such conditions as it may deem fit to impose so as to safeguard the realization of penalty." 6. Under Section 111(1) of the Act any person aggrieved by an order made by an adjudicating officer or by the appropriate Commission may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal For Electricity. It is thus clear that the petitioners have got the alternative efficacious remedy under Section 111(1) of the Act and an appeal can be filed either against the order of the Ombudsman dated 01.02.2006 or the order of the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission dated 03.06.2006 before the Appellate Tribunal For Electricity. 7. In view of this the application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution is allowed and the stay granted by this Court on 12.06.2006 is vacated. 8. At this stage Mr. Virendra Lodha learned Counsel for the petitioners prays to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction at New Delhi. 9. Learned Counsels for the respondents do not oppose this request. 10. 8. At this stage Mr. Virendra Lodha learned Counsel for the petitioners prays to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction at New Delhi. 9. Learned Counsels for the respondents do not oppose this request. 10. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed as withdrawn and the petitioners are given liberty to file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction at New Delhi and the period spent on account of pendency of the writ petition in the High Court may be considered for the purpose of condonation of delay by the Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction at New Delhi if any application for condonation of delay is made by the petitioners at the time of filing of appeal.