Judgment Ravi R. Tripathi, J.—The learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Calla tendered affidavit in reply which is taken on record. Learned Advocate Mr. A.D. Qza points out that against the order passed by the ‘authority specified’ under Part-I of the Schedule-I to Bombay Electricity Duty Act, 1958, an appeal lies before the State Government. He submitted that against the order passed by the specified authority which is placed on record subsequently, no appeal is filed and, therefore, on this short ground, this petition is required to be dismissed. 2. Mr. Nanavati submitted that the matter was already admitted before the order was passed by the specified authority and, therefore, the petitioner should not be relegated to file appeal before the State Government. 3. It is true that the petition was filed on 22.06.1999 and was admitted on 23.06.1999. As the order was passed by the specified authority on the same day i.e. on 23.06.1999, the petitioner did not have the order on the date of filing of the petition. But then, the fact remains that under the law, the order passed by specified authority is required to be challenged before the State Government. 4. In view of this discussion, the present petition is disposed of on this short ground that the order is required to be challenged before the appellate forum. At the request of learned Advocate for petitioner, it is clarified that it will be open for the petitioner to pray for condonation of delay in filing the appeal in view of the fact that the petitioner was before this Court pursuing the present petition. 5. In the event, the condonation of delay application is opposed by the respondents, the same will be decided by the appellate authority in accordance with law. Petition is disposed of accordingly. Rule is discharged. No order as to cost.