JUDGEMENT A.M.KHANWILKAR, C.J. - 1. HEARD counsel for the parties. 2. PRELIMINARY objection is taken by the counsel appearing for the respondents that the petitioner has rushed to this Court without exhausting remedy of statutory appeal against the decision, dated 6th September, 2012, in case Nos.86 of 2012 and 104 of 2012; and order dated 18th June, 2013 in Review Petition No.20 of 2013. The petitioner, however, contends that the order impugned in this petition has been passed without giving notice to the petitioner. This submission does not commend to us. We find merits in the argument of the respondents that the impugned order, dated 6th September, 2012, has been passed on the joint application made by the Board and the petitioner, as is evident from paragraph 1 of the impugned order. We fail to understand as to how the petitioner can make grievance that no notice was given to the petitioner. To get over this position, the argument of the petitioner is that the Regulatory Commission has decided the issue, which was not agitated by the . petitioner. That grievance, however, can be made by way of statutory appeal. 3. IN the circumstances, we are not inclined to exercise writ jurisdiction, as the petitioner has remedy of statutory appeal against the impugned decisions in the original petitions as well as in Review petition. The petitioner may take recourse to that remedy, if so advised. Needless to observe that the Appellate Authority should not non-suit the petitioner on the ground of limitation, as it will have to reckon the time spent by the petitioner in pursuing the present petition before this Court and exclude that period. Moreover, the respondents, having taken preliminary objection regarding availability of statutory remedy, cannot be heard to raise issue of appeal being barred by limitation, if the petitioner were to resort to that remedy. This position is placed on record. 4. PETITION stands disposed of accordingly, so also the pending application(s), if any.