Judgment Cyriac Joseph, C. , J.—This writ appeal is filed against the judgment dated 20-6-2006 in Writ Petition No. 5703/2006 which was rejected by the learned single Judge. The appellant is the petitioner in the writ petition. 2. The substantial prayer in the writ petition was for a direction to the third respondent to consider the appeal dated 25-1-2005 filed by the writ petitioner and pass appropriate order within a reasonable time. Copy of the appeal was produced as Annexure A to the writ petition. However, the learned single Judge rejected the writ petition observing that during the pendency of the appeal (Annexure A), the petitioner could not have invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. According to the averments in the writ petition, Annexure A appeal was filed on 25-1-2005. The writ petition was filed only on 17-4-2006. It means that the petitioner waited for more than a year for action to be taken by the third respondent on Annexure A appeal. Only when the petitioner found that no action was being taken by the third respondent, he filed the writ petition. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the petitioner was entitled to approach the High Court for a direction to the third respondent to compel him to discharge his statutory duty of considering and disposing of the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner. When a statutory authority fails or refuses to discharge his statutory duty, the citizen has a right to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Such a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be rejected on the ground that the appeal filed by the petitioner is still pending before the statutory authority. If there is failure or refusal on the part of the statutory authority to discharge its duty or if there is unreasonable delay in discharging its duty, this Court should invoke its power under Article 226 to compel the statutory authority to discharge its duty. Otherwise, the aggrieved citizen will be left without a remedy. 4. Hence the impugned order of the learned single Judge is set aside. Otherwise, the aggrieved citizen will be left without a remedy. 4. Hence the impugned order of the learned single Judge is set aside. The third respondent is directed to consider and dispose Annexure A appeal in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the above direction will operate only if the third respondent had actually received Annexure A appeal and it is still pending. 5. The writ appeal is allowed in the above terms. Appellant may produce a copy of the writ petition and a copy of this order before the third respondent for information and compliance. 6. Appeal allowed.