- (1.)ADMITTEDLY , the powers under section 59 of the Act of 1972 are revisional powers. In this petition the petitioner has challenged the impugned order (Annexure P-2), passed by the State Government on 28.3.2003, whereby rejected the revision simply on the ground that against the said order an alternative remedy of filing writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is available to the petitioner and has also placed reliance on a DB decision of this High Court in the case of Biharilal v. State reported in 1983 JLJ 757 = 1983 MPLJ 553.
(2.)THE sole submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the remedy under section 59 of the Act is a statutory remedy. When remedy of section 59 of the Act is availed of by the petitioner by filing revision the concerned authority, who is hearing and deciding the revision cannot dismiss the revision solely on the ground that the effective an alternative remedy of writ petition is available. The writ Court can say that in the presence of the aforesaid provisions of section 59 of the Act the petitioner is having alternative efficacious statutory remedy of revision, therefore, Shri Pavecha submitted that the learned authority has committed illegality and has not considered the decision of the Division Bench properly and has wrongly rejected the revision on that ground without any application of mind. Therefore, his sole submission is that the matter be referred back to the concerned revisional authority so that he may consider the matter and decide the same in accordance with law on merits.
In reply, Shri Vivek Sharan for the respondent No. 1 and Shri Mandhanya for the respondents No. 2 and 3 have supported the impugned order (Annexure P-2) passed by the State Government. The counsel for the State submitted that the Court has considered the matter on merits as well as the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and has decided the same, therefore, there is no scope for interference in the said order passed by the State Government.

(3.)HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the impugned order (Annexure P-2) of the State, I am of the view that the Deputy Secretary has committed an illegality in not considering the ratio of the decision in the case of Biharilal (supra) and has wrongly rejected the revision solely on the ground that the revision under section 59 of the Act is not an efficacious and effective remedy. I think the learned Deputy Secretary has not considered the decision referred to above correctly. The remedy under section 59 of the Act is a statutory remedy under which the State Government may, at any time, call for and examine the persons/record of any Market Committee for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any decision taken or order passed by the Market Committee. Section 59 of the Act further provides that if in any case it appears to the State Government that any decision or order or proceedings so called should be modified, annuled or reversed, the State Government may pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit, after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Market Committee or to the parties affected thereby.