*1* wp.1538.11.936.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1538 OF 2011 Shrimant Vijaysinghraje Dafale. ..Petitioner ­Versus­ Sujit Ashok Shinde and others. ..Respondents .......... Mr.S.S.Patwardhan, for the Petitioner. Mr.P.S.Dani, for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.S.N.Bhosale, AGP, for the Respondents/State. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 07th June, 2011. P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. 2 The petition by the Market Committee impugns the order passed by the Director of Marketing, Maharashtra State, dated 08.09.2010 in Appeal No.11/2010. The original Appellant to the said appeal who is contesting Respondent in this Writ Petition, raised preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the Petitioner has alternate equally efficacious remedy available under the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 and particularly under Section 52B thereof. 3 Mr.Dani, the learned counsel for the contesting Respondents, invites my attention to this section and submits that against the order of the Director, there is an appeal available to the State Government and merely because sub­section (3) of the said provision gives finality to the order of the Appellate Authority, does not mean that in the instant case the appeal cannot be filed or is not maintainable. He, therefore, submits *2* wp.1538.11.936.sxw that the writ petition may not be entertained. 4 In the instant case, there is decision taken by the Market Committee on 10.12.2009 evicting the contesting Respondents to this Writ Petition from the premises belonging to the Market Committee, that order came to be challenged by the contesting Respondent in this petition before the Appellate Authority namely the Director of Marketing. That was an appeal under Section 52B(1)(a) of the Act. A complete reading of this provision would indicate that the sub­clause thereof provides an appeal against the order of the Director to the State Government. Finality attached under sub­section (3) to the orders of the Appellate Authority must be seen in the light of the distinct powers conferred under sub­ clauses (a) and (b). In these circumstances, apprehension of Mr.Patwardhan is that the remedy of appeal is not available and if at all available is not efficacious, is not well founded. 5 From reading of the order passed in the instant case and the provisions providing the appeal, I am of the opinion that the Petitioner has equally efficacious alternate remedy in terms of an appeal to the State Government against the impugned order. In the light thereof, this petition cannot be entertained. Accordingly, it is disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to avail of the alternate remedy and the appeal if filed before the State Government within four weeks from today, then, the contesting Respondents shall not raise a plea of limitation and there upon the Appellate Authority shall decide the appeal in accordance with law. All contentions on the points of limitation, so also, on merits are kept open. 6 Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)