JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged order dated 23.05.2017 (Annexure P-18), passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. vide which, order(s) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), in exercise of quasi judicial powers conferred upon the said authority under the provisions of the Panchayati Raj Act, were set aside by the Deputy Commissioner with further direction that the private respondent herein was to continue as Panchayat Chowkidar in Gram Panchayat Lower Rewalsar, resulting in the termination of the services of the present petitioner. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that order impugned is per se void ab initio because a perusal of the same will demonstrate that an order passed by a quasi judicial authority, i.e. Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) was set aside by the Deputy Commissioner not in any appeal filed by the present private respondent but on a representation, purportedly filed by him in the light of direction of this Court in CWP No. 2308/2016, decided on 06.09.2016. He has further argued that there was no direction issued by this Court to the Deputy Commissioner to adjudicate upon any representation to be filed by the present private respondent and while passing the impugned order, Deputy Commissioner has erred in not appreciating that because order being assailed before it by the private respondent was a quasi judicial order, the same could not have been interfered with, except in accordance with law, which entailed filing of an appeal against the order passed by the quasi judicial authority. He thus submits that as the order per se is bad in law, the same be quashed and set aside. He has also argued that even otherwise there was perversity writ large in the order impugned because the same authority, which earlier while functioning as a quasi judicial Appellate Authority had held that the appeal filed by the petitioner was within limitation, has now returned findings to the contrary without there being any fresh material on record inviting any such finding. 3. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent No. 5 has supported the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on the ground that the representation was rightly entertained by the Deputy Commissioner because this Court had in fact ordered that the respondent was at liberty to approach the Deputy Commissioner. 3. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent No. 5 has supported the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on the ground that the representation was rightly entertained by the Deputy Commissioner because this Court had in fact ordered that the respondent was at liberty to approach the Deputy Commissioner. He further argued that the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) was not sustainable in law and the same was correctly set aside by the Deputy Commissioner. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also gone through the impugned order and other documents appended with the petition. 5. A perusal of the impugned order demonstrates that the same was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, on a representation, so filed before him by private respondent herein, purportedly ?in the light of judgment delivered by the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP No. 2308 of 2016 on 06.09.2016?. 6. The order passed by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court is appended with the petition as Annexure P-16. The same reads as under:- ?Subject matter of this writ petition is the order, dated 2.8.2016, Annexure P-24 made by respondent No. 3. Mr. Romesh Verma, learned Additional Advocate General stated that the Bar that the order under challenge is appealable before the Deputy Commissioner. 2. In the given circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of by providing that the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority within one week from today. Till then, the status of the petitioner is protected. 3. The petition is accordingly disposed of, as indicated above, alongwith pending applications, if any.? 7. A perusal of the order passed by this Court dated 06.09.2016 demonstrates that there was no direction issued by this Court enabling Dhameshwar (Private respondent herein) to file representation before the Deputy Commissioner. The petition in fact was disposed of with liberty to Dhameshwar, to approach the appropriate authority in view of the objection having been taken by learned Additional Advocate General that the petition was not maintainable as the order being assailed by way of said petition was an appealable order before the Deputy Commissioner. 8. The petition in fact was disposed of with liberty to Dhameshwar, to approach the appropriate authority in view of the objection having been taken by learned Additional Advocate General that the petition was not maintainable as the order being assailed by way of said petition was an appealable order before the Deputy Commissioner. 8. Therefore, the act of the Deputy Commissioner of entertaining the representation filed by the private respondent herein and thereafter treating and disposing of the same as if it was hearing an appeal, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 9. Right to file appeal is a statutory right. It is not a common law right. Wherever right to file appeal is conferred upon a party, then it has to avail said right strictly in consonance with the statutory provisions and statutory rules framed in this regard under the relevant Statute. 10. Mere representation filed against an order passed by a quasi judicial authority, may be before the authority which has the power to hear appeal against said order, does not confers any power upon the said authority to adjudicate upon the representation as if it were an appeal. For the purpose of deciding an appeal, there has to be properly constituted appeal before the authority and same has to be filed within the period of limitation. Assuming that there is power with the appellate authority to condone delay in filing the appeal, then also time barred appeal can be entertained if the party concerned bonafidely explains the delay in filing the appeal. Otherwise, any such appeal, which is time barred wherein the appellate authority does not has power to condone the delay, cannot even be entertained by the quasi judicial authority. 11. In the case in hand, Deputy Commissioner by ignoring all these aspects of the matter has passed the impugned order without appreciating that he could not have had set aside a quasi judicial order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) under the provisions of the Panchayati Raj Act, on a Representation of the aggrieved party. The impugned order thus prima facie is perverse and not sustainable in law. 12. At this stage, learned Counsel for private respondent submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the representation itself which resulted in passing of the impugned order with liberty to file an appeal/ revision before the said authority. 13. The impugned order thus prima facie is perverse and not sustainable in law. 12. At this stage, learned Counsel for private respondent submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the representation itself which resulted in passing of the impugned order with liberty to file an appeal/ revision before the said authority. 13. Keeping in view the peculiar facts of this case, in the interest of justice, said plea of learned Counsel for respondent No. 5 is accepted. Representation filed by private respondent, which resulted in passing of the impugned order dated 23.05.2017, is permitted to be withdrawn. As a result thereof, impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. dated 23.05.2017 (Annexure P-18) is rendered infructuous. It goes without saying that the private respondent shall be at liberty to file an appeal/ revision against the order from which he is aggrieved, however, the same will be subject to the legal rights of the present petitioner, which stand accrued by the efflux of time. The petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.