FRIEGERIO CONSERVA ALLANA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER & DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING, HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDINARILY , this sort of appeal should not have been entertained by this Court as the learned Trial Judge found no fault in the impugned order of Revising authority of Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). But we intervene in this matter as an exceptional case. The Revising authority dismissed the revision application in limine on the ground of, so to say, alternative remedy. After hearing the learned counsel for parties, we think the approach of the Revising Authority is incorrect for he has no option, unlike the Constitutional writ Court, but to entertain revision application once ground therefor is made out. We notice the power of the revising authority is very wider as provided under Section 12 -F of the Act because it does not depend upon the decision of the appellate authority alone. So, we set out the said provision:

(2.) SECTION 12 -F: Revision by the Director of Marketing:

(3.) IT would appear, the Revising authority can call for records and examine the propriety and legality of the order passed even by the first authority. Here, the appellant -writ petitioner has alleged that the order of the first authority suffers from gross impropriety and illegality. So, it could be examined by the Revising authority instead of asking to travel through appellate forum. As correctly pointed by the learned counsel for appellant, the learned Trial Judge, in our view, has not examined this aspect of the matter. His Lordship thought that the concept of exhaustion of remedy in a matter of this nature should be followed. The learned Trial Judge seems to have doubted the bona fide of the appellant, that in order to circumvent the provision of pre -deposit of the tax amount, the appellant had taken such course of action.