ORDER 1. This appeal is preferred under Section 2 (1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha yayalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 assailing the order dated 14.5.2009 in Writ Petition No. 5088/2009, by which the petition preferred by the appellant against the order dated 29.12.2008 (Annex.p/4) has been dismissed because of availability of remedy under Sections 126 and 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter in short referred to 'the Act') 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it was not a case of theft but in fact it was a sparking in an electricity meter which was intimated to the respondents but the employees of the respondents though rectified the fault but falsely registered a criminal case against the appellant, in respect of theft of the electricity. It is submitted that the entire proceedings deserve to be quashed. As the matter is in process under Section 126 of the Act, the appellant is free to raise all his contentions before the authority. The final order that may be passed under Section 126 of the Act is also appealable under Section 127 of the Act, so an efficacious alternative remedy is available to the appellant. So far as contention of the appellant that in fact there was no theft and after rectification of the alleged fault of sparking, a false case 0 theft was registered against the appellant, at this juncture, this Court cannot enquire into the aforesaid disputed question of fact. The appellant may raise all his contentions before the authority under Section 126 of the Act and in case any order is passed under Section 126 of the Act the appellant may file an appeal under Section 127 of the Act raising all his contentions before the authority. If any such appeal is filed, needless to say, the appellate authority shall consider the grievance of the appellant in accordance with law. 3. If such an appeal is filed within a period of thirty days from today, the appellate authority shall entertain and decide the appeal in accordance with law without going into the question of limitation. 4. With the aforesaid direction, we do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order. This appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost.