ORDER 1. This civil appeal arises from an order of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (for short, APTEL) dated 02.04.2014 in DFR No.2718 of 2013 by which APTEL has dismissed appellant’s appeal as not maintainable for being confined to rejection of the review petition. Besides, APTEL held the appeal to be barred since the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission, Bangalore (for short, the State Commission) had taken the view that review was belated and the prayer to condone the delay was liable to be rejected. 2. This case has a checkered history, therefore, a look at the facts would be necessary. Relevant facts are as follows: (i) On 29.04.2010, the State Commission passed an order, against which the appellant filed a misconceived appeal before the High Court by placing reliance on provisions of a State Act which stood impliedly repealed by the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short, 2003 Act). As a result, the High Court dismissed that appeal, vide order dated 13.02.2012, on the ground that appropriate remedy for the appellant would be to file an appeal before APTEL under Section 111 of the Electricity Act. While dismissing the appeal, the High Court gave liberty to the appellant to prefer an appeal under the 2003 Act within four weeks. (ii) Instead of filing an appeal under Section 111 of the 2003 Act, the appellant chose to file a review before the High Court which came to be dismissed on 05.02.2013. While dismissing the review, the High Court granted liberty to the appellant to file an appeal before APTEL within 30 days. (iii) As a result, the appellant finally filed an appeal before APTEL against the order dated 29.04.2010. (iv) However, though APTEL condoned the delay in filing appeal, the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 20.05.2013 while observing that the ground on which the appeal was preferred ought to have been taken before the State Commission by filing a review. APTEL also observed that remedy for the appellant lies elsewhere. (v) Taking a clue from the order of APTEL dated 20.05.2013, the appellant preferred a review before the State Commission seeking review of the order dated 29.04.2010. (vi) The State Commission, vide Order dated 17.10.2013, dismissed the review petition on the ground that it was barred by limitation as sufficient cause was not shown to condone the same. (v) Taking a clue from the order of APTEL dated 20.05.2013, the appellant preferred a review before the State Commission seeking review of the order dated 29.04.2010. (vi) The State Commission, vide Order dated 17.10.2013, dismissed the review petition on the ground that it was barred by limitation as sufficient cause was not shown to condone the same. (vii) Aggrieved therewith, the appellant filed appeal before APTEL impugning not only the order passed on the review petition but also the order dated 29.04.2010. The appellant also filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the order dated 29.04.2010. (viii) By the impugned order APTEL dismissed the appeal by treating the same as one preferred only against the order passed on the review petition. APTEL took the view that since the original order was not subjected to challenge and the review petition was dismissed, the appeal was not maintainable as there would be no merger of the original order with the order passed on the review petition. Besides above, APTEL took the view that there was no sufficient ground to condone the delay. 7. Assailing the order passed by APTEL, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted: (i) APTEL overlooked that the challenge in the appeal was to the original order dated 29.04.2010 and the order passed on the review petition. In such circumstances, the view taken by APTEL that since the original order was not subjected to challenge, there being no merger of the original order in the order passed on review, the appeal was not maintainable, is erroneous and contrary to records. (ii) Besides, the view taken by APTEL that sufficient cause for condonation of delay was not shown is contrary to the records since the appellant had been throughout litigating for his right, though he took recourse to an erroneous remedy before the High Court. However, once the High Court was satisfied that the appellant had pursued the remedy in good faith and gave liberty to the appellant to present his appeal within 30 days, the appeal presented soon thereafter, within the time provided by High Court, along with delay condonation application, was liable to be entertained and was entertained by APTEL. Though, APTEL dismissed the appeal on the ground that appropriate remedy would be to file a review. Though, APTEL dismissed the appeal on the ground that appropriate remedy would be to file a review. Thereafter the appellant filed the review, which was dismissed by the State Commission holding that review was not the appropriate remedy and there was no ground to condone the delay. In such circumstances, when the appellant had been pursuing remedies one after the other, though before the wrong forum, the delay ought to have been condoned more so when the High Court had given liberty to the appellant to file appeal within 30 days and the appeal was filed within the said period. In such circumstances, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the order passed by APTEL is liable to be set aside and appeal preferred by the appellant is entitled to be restored for fresh consideration in accordance with law. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that though the appeal preferred by the appellant may have impugned both original as well as the order passed on the review petition, but the appellant had only pressed the challenge to the order passed on the review petition. In such circumstances, tribunal was justified in holding that the appeal was not maintainable being against the rejection of the review petition. Besides, the appellant was not entitled for condonation of delay inasmuch as the order dated 20.05.2013 did not specifically give liberty to the appellant to file a review though the order did mention that review would have been the appropriate remedy. In such circumstances, it is prayed on behalf of the respondents that the appeal be dismissed. 9. We have accorded due consideration to the rival submissions and have perused the records carefully. 10. A perusal of the record would reveal that the appellant had questioned the order dated 29.04.2010 by taking recourse to an erroneous remedy before the High Court. The High Court found the proceedings initiated by the appellant as not maintainable. However, the High Court gave liberty to the appellant to pursue appropriate remedy under the 2003 Act within 30 days. It is not in dispute that thereafter the appellant took recourse to the appropriate remedy and the delay in taking recourse to that remedy was condoned by APTEL. Once that is the position, in our view, the appellant could not have been non-suited on the ground of delay. It is not in dispute that thereafter the appellant took recourse to the appropriate remedy and the delay in taking recourse to that remedy was condoned by APTEL. Once that is the position, in our view, the appellant could not have been non-suited on the ground of delay. As far as the submission that order dated 20.05.2013 did not specifically gave liberty to the appellant to file a review petition is concerned, we are of the view that though APTEL in its order dated 20.05.2013 may not have been specific in giving liberty to file the review but it clearly indicated that remedy for the appellant lay elsewhere. Besides, APTEL, in the paragraph preceding the operative part, had clearly observed that the appropriate remedy for the appellant was to file a review. 11. In such circumstances, the appellant had filed a review petition. We are not on the issue whether review was maintainable or not, or whether the review was liable to be allowed or not, keeping in mind the limited scope of a review. However, what is important is that the appellant must be heard by the appellate forum. An appeal is a valuable right which is available under Section 111 of the 2003 Act, 2003. 12. In such circumstances, in our considered view, the appeal of the appellant would have to be accorded due consideration by APTEL in accordance with law. Consequently, this appeal is allowed the order passed by APTEL holding the appeal preferred by the appellant as not maintainable, as also barred by limitation, is set aside. 13. We hold the appeal filed by the appellant maintainable and we also deem it appropriate to condone the delay. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant, namely, DFR No.2718 of 2013, shall be assigned a regular number and it shall stand restored on the records of APTEL and will be decided afresh in accordance with law. 14. This Appeal and pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.