C.W.P. No. 4862 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 4862 of 2011 Date of Decision:- 16.11.2011 Ram Kumar .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present:- Mr. V.B. Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Addl. AG Haryana for respondent No. 1. Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3. **** SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J(Oral). C.M. No. 15500 of 2011 C.M. is allowed. Rejoinder is taken on record. CWP No. 4862 of 2011 Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition challenging the order dated 30.11.2010 passed by the Chief Administrator Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board, Panchkula, whereby the representation filed by the petitioner for charging the simple interest instead of compound interest on the delayed payment of installment has been rejected. Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 while referring to Sub Section (3) of Section 40 of Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, C.W.P. No. 4862 of 2011 2 1961 (as applicable to Haryana) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), pointed out that against the impugned order the petitioner has a remedy of revision before the State Government, and he has not availed the said remedy. Section 40 Sub Section (3) of the Act is reproduced below: “(3) The State Government may, either suo motu or on an application made in this behalf, call for the record of any case or an order passed by the Board or the Chief Administrator within a period of sixty days of the supply of the certified copy of such order, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of the order passed therein, and pass such order in relation thereto as it may deem fit, after giving the person likely to be affected thereby an opportunity of being heard.” Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 has relied on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in M/s Singla Rice Mills, K.C. Road, Barnala Vs. Market Committee, Barnala and another 2008(3) All India Land Laws Reporter 62 wherein it has been stated that when against the impugned order the statutory remedy of revision is available, then the writ petition could not be entertained. After hearing learned counsel and in view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition, and relegate the petitioner to avail the said statutory remedy. In case, the petitioner files such revision within 30 days from today, the Revisional Authority is directed to consider and decide the same on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after passing a speaking order. It is further directed that while deciding the matter, the Revisional Authority will take into consideration the judgment of Apex Court in Haryana State Agricultural C.W.P. No. 4862 of 2011 3 Marketing Board and another Vs. Raj Pal 2011(3) RCR(Civil) 514. Disposed of. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE 16.11.2011 ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) reema JUDGE