JUDGMENT Mr. Surya Kant, J.: (Oral) - This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 24.7.2012 passed by learned Single Judge allowing Civil Writ Petition No.14701 of 2009 whereby the order dated 22.10.2008 passed by the Appellate Authority in purported exercise of its power under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), has been set-aside for non-compliance of Section 127 (2) of the Act, namely, the condition of pre-deposit equal to half of the assessed amount before entertaining the appeal. The Appellate Authority has been accordingly directed to decide the appeal afresh after the appellant complies with Section 127(2) of the Act. 2. The appellant herein preferred an appeal under Section 127 of the Act against the assessment order dated 7.7.2008 imposing penalty of Rs.27,96,006/- on it. Section 127 of the Act reads as under:- “127. Appeal to Appellate Authority:- (1) Any person aggrieved by the final order made under Section 126, may within thirty days of the said order, prefer an appeal in such form, verified in such manner and be accompanied by such fee as may be specified by the State Commission, to an appellate authority as may be prescribed. (2) No appeal against an order of assessment under sub-section (1) shall be entertained unless an amount equal to half of the assessed amount is deposited in cash or by way of bank draft with the licensee and documentary evidence of such deposit has been enclosed alongwith the appeal.” 3. Sub-Section (2) of Section 127 thus stipulates that no appeal against an order of assessment shall be entertained unless an amount equal to half of the assessed amount is deposited. The Assessing Authority, however, informed the appellant vide letter dated 7.7.2008 (Annexure P-6) that if the appellant was aggrieved by the final assessment order, it could prefer an appeal within 30 days “by depositing one third of the finally assessed amount”. 4. The appellant deposited one third of the amount alongwith appeal preferred by it. The objection taken by the respondent-Board against maintainability of the appellant’s appeal for non-deposit of 50% of the assessed amount was turned down by the Appellate Authority observing that the appellant was required to deposit only one third of the assessed amount as intimated to it by the Assessing Authority. The objection taken by the respondent-Board against maintainability of the appellant’s appeal for non-deposit of 50% of the assessed amount was turned down by the Appellate Authority observing that the appellant was required to deposit only one third of the assessed amount as intimated to it by the Assessing Authority. The Appellate Authority thereafter proceeded to decide the appeal on merits and allowed the same essentially on the ground that principles of natural justice were violated as provisional assessment order was not communicated to the appellant in terms of Sections 126 (2) & (3) of the Act. 5. The respondent-Board impugned the afore-stated order before the learned Single Judge and, as noticed at the outset, the writ petition has been allowed not on merits but on the plea that the appellant was required to deposit 50% of the assessed amount as a condition precedent for entertaining its appeal. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant for some time and gone through the record. 7. There is indeed no quarrel that right to appeal is a creation of Statute and in the instant case such a right has been conferred by Sub- Section (I) of Section 127 of the Act. However, Sub-Section (2) of Section 127 has an over-siding effect on Sub-Section (1) as it mandates that no appeal against the order of assessment shall be entertained unless an amount equal to half of the assessed amount is deposited. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant fairly concedes that there is no power contained in Section 127 or any other provision of the Act enabling the Appellate Authority to reduce or waive off the condition of pre-deposit for entertaining the appeal. In the absence of any relaxation power, the statutory condition could not be dispensed with or relaxed by the Appellate Authority only because the Assessing Authority erroneously communicated to the appellant to deposit one third of the assessed amount for filing the appeal. 9. No fault thus can be found with the view formed by the learned Single Judge. It further appears that deposit of equal to half of the assessed amount shall cause no serious prejudice to the appellant. 9. No fault thus can be found with the view formed by the learned Single Judge. It further appears that deposit of equal to half of the assessed amount shall cause no serious prejudice to the appellant. We say so for the reason that if the appellant succeeds in appeal, the excess amount deposited by it can be set off and adjusted against future bills and/or appropriate directions for its refund alongwith permissible rate of interest can be issued. 10. For the reasons afore-stated, we do not find any merit in this appeal. 11. Dismissed. 12. The Appellate Authority is directed to decide the appeal afresh on consideration of the rival contentions and in accordance with law as soon as the appellant deposits the balance amount in terms of Section 127 (2) of the Act.