IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6826 of 2008 Between: K.R. Ramulu, s/o. K.R. Rambharosa, at Shop No. B-14, Bewenpalli Agricultural Market Committee, Bowenpalli, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Agricultural Marketing Hyderabad, Rep through its Commissioner & Director of Agricultural Marketing 2 The Agricultural Market Committee, Bowenpalli, Secundrabad, Rep by its Chairman .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.SUDHEER FOR MR.K.RAGHUVEER REDDY Counsel for Respondent No.2: MR. V.V.NARAYANA RAO The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in refusing to entertain the appeal filed by the petitioner against order, dated 27.11.2007 on the file of respondent No.2 as illegal and arbitrary. By order, dated 27.11.2007, respondent No.2 cancelled the Agricultural Market license and allotment of shop No.B-14 of Bowenpally. Questioning the said order, one Bitla Sunil filed W.P.No.25816 of 2007 before this Court. The petitioner is respondent No.3 in the said writ petition. The said order of cancellation was suspended by this Court by order, dated 04.12.2007. The petitioner filed W.V.M.P.No.3267 of 2007 and the Agricultural Market Committee, Bowenpally filed W.V.M.P.No.3177 of 2007 seeking vacation of the said interim order and dismissal of the writ petition. A learned Single Judge by his order, dated 04.12.2007 passed the following order: “In the light of view expressed by Learned Judge to the effect that when there are rival claims in respect of terms, such dispute to be resolved else where but not in the court, this court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to be decided by an appropriate Division Bench in the light of the rival stands taken by the parties.” The learned Single Judge initially referred the matter to a Division Bench and the Division Bench again referred back the case to the learned Single Judge. It is represented by Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the Agricultural Market Committee that the writ petition and the vacate stay applications are still pending in this Court. When the petitioner filed appeal under Rule 53 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Rules, 1969 (for short ‘the Rules’) before the Commissioner and Director of Marketing, Hyderabad, he declined to entertain the appeal on the ground that W.P.No.25816 of 2007 filed by the said Bitla Sunil in this Court is pending and that it is not appropriate to entertain the appeal filed by the petitioner. At the hearing, Sri S.Sudheep, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has a right to file an appeal under Rule 53 of the Rules and by declining to entertain the appeal, the Commissioner and Director of Marketing denied the petitioner’s statutory right of appeal. Though this submission of the learned counsel looks attractive at the first blush, considering the peculiar facts of this case, I find no substance in it. It is no doubt true that if an appeal is provided to an aggrieved party by a statute, such a right cannot be denied to him. But, in the instant case, the very same order passed by respondent No.2 on 27.11.2007, which is the subject matter of the proposed appeal, was questioned by a rival claimant before this Court. Significantly, this Court did not decline to entertain the writ petition without insisting that he ought to have filed an appeal instead of filing a writ petition. Irrespective of whether the said Bitla Sunil is entitled to file an appeal or not, the fact remains that a writ petition filed by him questioning the legality and validity of order, dated 27.11.2007 is entertained by this Court and this Court is seized of the said issue in the said writ petition. Though, ordinarily, the petitioner has an unqualified right for filing an appeal against order, dated 27.11.2007, having regard to the above mentioned facts, the Commissioner and Director of Agricultural Marketing declined to entertain the appeal on the ground that the issue raised in the appeal is the subject matter of consideration of this Court in the said writ petition. Eventually, if the legality of order, dated 27.11.2007 is decided by this Court on merits, there would be no necessity of filing an appeal by the petitioner. In the event this Court declines to adjudicate on the merits of the said writ petition, he can always seek leave of this Court to file an appeal before the appellate Authority. In this view of the matter, I do not find any error in the order of respondent No.1 in declining to entertain the appeal on the ground of pendency of the above mentioned writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.8925 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 31st MARCH, 2008 kvni