IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 6075 of 2000 BETWEEN: Sri. Sreenivasa Ramakrishna Oil Mill, Proprietor Potta Ramakrishna, S/o. Pydisetti, Hindu, R/o. Dharmavaram Post, S. Kota Mandal, Vizianagaram District. ... PETITIONER AND The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram District. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue rule nisi calling for the entire records leading up to and inclusive of the proceedings of the respondent herein bearing Rc.No.140/SR.11/99-2000 dated 9-2-2000 and quash the said proceedings of the respondent herein by issuing an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Certiorari; and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.E.V.BHAGIRATHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY (SC FOR AGRL.MRKT.COMTTS) The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioner questions the proceedings of the respondent in Rc.No.140/SR.11/99-2000 dated 09.02.2000 in directing him to pay the balance amount of Rs.72,796/-, legal charges Rs.2,820/- and compound fees Rs.1,000/-, totaling to Rs.76,616/- so as to enable the respondent to withdraw the criminal cases filed by him against the petitioner in C.C.No.129 of 1996 and 112 of 1996. 2. It is stated that after receiving the demand for a sum of Rs.41,288/- towards payment of market fee for four years and penalty of Rs.82,576/- totaling to Rs.1,23,864/-, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.51,068/- but the aforesaid balance amount has not been paid, therefore, the petitioner was requested to pay the said balance amount so as to enable the respondent to withdraw the criminal cases. 3. In the counter it is stated that the criminal cases ended in acquittal and just before the judgment in C.C.Nos.129 and 112 of 1996 was delivered, the respondent passed revised orders revising the payment of market fee raising a demand of Rs.51,068/- out of which the petitioner already paid a sum of Rs.33,1000/- and the balance amount of Rs.18.068/- was also paid by the petitioner by way of cheque but the same has been dishonoured. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent has no power or authority to revise the earlier orders levying penalty, therefore, the revised orders of the respondent are illegal. 5. The said revised orders have not been filed either by the petitioner or by the respondent. Whether the respondent has got any power to revise the earlier orders or not, but the fact remains that the respondent passed revised orders and also the criminal cases against the petitioner ended in acquittal. Without expressing any opinion with regard to the liability of the petitioner pursuant to the revised order, the writ petition is disposed of keeping it open to the petitioner to question the revised orders unless the revised orders are modified or set aside. The respondent is entitled to collect the dishonoured cheque amount of Rs.18,068/- alone from the petitioner by taking any coercive steps. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J August 14, 2008 DSK