JUDGMENT : 1. Grievance of the petitioner is that an appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereafter the ‘Act’) presented by him before the appropriate appellate authority in terms of liberty granted by an Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court by order dated 30th November, 2016 has not been disposed of as yet and on the contrary, supply of electricity which had been restored upon payment of Rs.3,00,000/- as directed by the said Bench has since been disconnected. 2. The facts giving rise to presentation of the appeal before the said Bench may be noted first. 3. Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Section 126 of the Act. In terms of the provisional assessment that was made by the authorized officer, the petitioner was found liable to make payment of Rs.10,85,970/-. The provisional assessment was challenged by the petitioner by filing a writ petition [W. P. 17658 (W) of 2016]. The same was considered and disposed of by a learned Judge of this Court by order dated 8th September, 2016. The learned Judge directed the petitioner to make payment of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as a pre-condition for restoration of supply. If such amount were paid, the distribution licensee was directed to immediately restore the supply. A further direction was made for completing the assessment proceeding upon granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This order was carried in appeal, whereon the said Bench observed that having regard to the petitioner’s annual consumption, assessment to the effect that the petitioner was liable in a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of alleged pilferage seems to be infirm and that the licensee had no right to penalize a citizen. It was also observed that the licensee can only recover the price of the services rendered as laid down in the law. Prima facie satisfied with the case set up by the petitioner, the licensee was directed to restore supply of electricity upon deposit of a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- by him without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. The said Bench also granted liberty to the petitioner to agitate his dispute before the appropriate appellate authority. Four weeks time was granted to the petitioner to prefer an appeal, in default whereof the writ appeal itself would stand dismissed. 4. The writ appeal and the connected application, thus, stood disposed of. 5. The said Bench also granted liberty to the petitioner to agitate his dispute before the appropriate appellate authority. Four weeks time was granted to the petitioner to prefer an appeal, in default whereof the writ appeal itself would stand dismissed. 4. The writ appeal and the connected application, thus, stood disposed of. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner presented an appeal under Section 127 of the Act within the time stipulated by the said Bench. However, he did not make payment of 50% of the assessed amount. The petitioner was duly notified that he is required to make payment of the balance sum of Rs.2,42,985/- (i.e. 50% of the assessed dues), but not having made such-deposit, the supply was disconnected. 6. According to Mr. Halder, learned advocate for the petitioner, the appeal having been filed in terms of liberty granted by the said Bench and there being no requirement in terms of the order passed by it that the petitioner should deposit the additional sum of Rs.2,42,985/-, the appellate authority acted illegally in the exercise of his jurisdiction in demanding deposit of the balance sum. 7. Dr. Saha Roy, learned advocate for the distribution licensee, contends that the appeal could not have been entertained by the appellate authority without the petitioner, as appellant, depositing 50% of the assessed dues and the action of the licensee in disconnecting supply of electricity to the petitioner after service of due notice dated 6th October, 2017, which is an event post institution of the present writ petition, is neither illegal nor unjustified. 8. Mr. Koley, learned advocate for the appellate authority echoed the submission of Dr. Saha Roy. 9. Having read the order of the said Bench dated 30th November, 2016, it does not appear that the requirement of pre-deposit of 50% of the assessed dues, as mandated by subsection (2) of Section 127 of the Act, was waived. Therefore, the petitioner was under an obligation to present an appeal within four weeks in accordance with law, meaning thereby that if he wished to have his appeal entertained, deposit of 50% of the assessed dues was a must. There being no valid appeal in the eye of law, the licensee was within its right to disconnect supply once again. 10. There being no valid appeal in the eye of law, the licensee was within its right to disconnect supply once again. 10. In that view of the matter, I have no other option but to hold that the appellate authority by not entertaining the appeal did not commit any infirmity or illegality warranting interference. 11. The writ petition is without merit and accordingly, stands dismissed. 12. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 13. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.