B.P.Jeevan Reddy, C.J. - (1.) Common questions have been raised in these writ petitions. It would be sufficient to refer to the prayer made in writ petition No. 122 of 1980. The petitioner is a manufacturer of Torches, Miniature bulbs and Electric Batteries (Dry). As required by Rules the petitioner has been submitting price lists for approval to the appropriate authority. In that connection a question arose which expenses ought to be included in the 'whole-sale cash price' and which should not be. It is this dispute which is ventilated in these writ petitions.
(2.) In our opinion, the writ petition is not the proper remedy for the said purpose. The Act itself provides a remedy in case the petitioner is aggrieved with the orders of the appropriate authority in the matter of approval of price list. It is also brought to our notice that after the filing of these writ petitions, many developments have taken place and that in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Bombay Tyres, price lists for subsequent periods have been approved - though it is not clear whether the approval was done on a provisional basis or otherwise. Be that as it may, we decline to interfere in the matter. It is open to the petitioner to adopt such proceedings according to law, as he may be advised to. It is, however, made clear that if he proposes to file an appeal or appeals, as the case may be, he shall do so within one month from today. If he files within the said period, the same shall be entertained by the Appellate Authority without raising any objection on the ground of limitation. The appeal shall be dealt with and disposed of according to law.
(3.) The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the above observations. Interim orders made in the writ petitions are vacated.;