K. S. PUTTASWAMY, J. ( 1 ) IN these petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the various letters arid communications issued by respondent no 1 refusing to approve the decision of respondent No. 2 to increase their pay scales. ( 2 ) AT Ranebennur, Dharward dt. , there is an Agricultural Produce market Committee (hereinafter refer- red to as the A. P. M. C.) constituted and functioning under the provisions of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce marketing Regulation Act of 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Acty and the petitioners are working as senior market superviors of the said a. P. M. C. On 3. 6. 1977 the A. P. M. C. by its resolution of that date (Ex. A) decided to revise the pay scales of the petitioners from Rs'. 300-700 to 400-900. As required by the Act, the A. P. M. C. forwarded a copy of the said resolution to the Chief Marketing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the C. M. O.), respondent 1 and sought his approval for the same. By various communications and orders made from time to time, the C. M. O. has refused to accord his approval to the same, for which reason the petitioners have moved this Court for appropriate reliefs, ( 3 ) THE petitioner claim that the a. P. M. C. is competent to revise the pay scales and pay them in accordance with the revised pay scales and the c. M. O. has no jurisdiction to interfere with the decision of the A. P. M. C. Alternatively they have urged that there was no justification for the cmo to withhold his approval when he had granted such approval to various other A. P. M. Cs. like Bailhongal, haveri, Savanur and Hirekerur. ( 4 ) SMT. S. Pramila, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that under the Act and the Rules, prior approval of the C. M. O. was nonecessary and that the A. P. M. C. is free to revise the pay scales and pay their salary in terms of the revised pay scales. ( 5 ) SRI S. V. Narasimhan, learned high Court Government -Pleader appealing for respondent No. 1 contends that on a proper construction of ss, 53 and 61 of the Act and Rule 64 (6) of the Rules, prior approval of the c. M. O. was necessary. ( 5 ) SRI S. V. Narasimhan, learned high Court Government -Pleader appealing for respondent No. 1 contends that on a proper construction of ss, 53 and 61 of the Act and Rule 64 (6) of the Rules, prior approval of the c. M. O. was necessary. ( 6 ) RESPONDENT No. 2 who has been duly served is absent and is unrepresented. ( 7 ) AN examination of the provisions of the Act and the Rules on which Sri narasimhan placed strong reliance, nowhere provides for obtaining prior approval of the C. M. O. before revising the pay scales of the servants of of the A. P. M. C. and make payments thereto. The A. P. M. C. as the employer is competent decide the same and its decision is not made subject to any confirmation or prior approval by the C. M. O. or any other governmental authority functioning under the Act. In this view, there was no necessity whatsoever for the A. P. M. C. to obtain the prior approval of the C. M. O. to revise the pay scales and make payment in terms of the revised pay scales. ( 8 ) SMT. Pramila next contends that the C. M. O. having accorded his approval in similar cases, could not have withheld his approval to the proposal made by the A. P. M. C. of Ranebenur. ( 9 ) SRI Narasimhan contends that the decision taken by the C. M. O. in the case of other A. P. M. C. s had no relevance in deciding the correctness of the order made by the C. M. O. ( 10 ) SRI Narasimhan does not dispute that the C. M. O. has accorded his approval to various other A. P. M. Cs. of the State. Every one of the letters and orders made by the C. M. O. do not set out any valid reason for refusing permission sought by the A. P. M. C. , assuming the- same was necessary under the Act and the Rules. When the C. M. O. has accorded his approval to other A. P. M. Cs. in similar circumstances, there was absolutely no justification or reason for the C. M. O. to refuse his approval to the A. P. M. C. of ranebennur, if the same was necessary under the Act and Rules. When the C. M. O. has accorded his approval to other A. P. M. Cs. in similar circumstances, there was absolutely no justification or reason for the C. M. O. to refuse his approval to the A. P. M. C. of ranebennur, if the same was necessary under the Act and Rules. ( 11 ) SRI Narasimhan contends that the sole consideration on which the c. M. O. had refused to accord his approval was that the revision of pay scales would exceed the permissible limit of expenditure and, therefore, this Court should decline to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners. ( 12 ) IN determining the revision of pay scales to the servants of an A. P. M. C. the scale of expendation cannot be the sole consideration. After all, the APMC which is well aware of its financial position has decided to revise the pay scales having regard to the revision of pay scales made in the other A. P. M. Cs. When that is so there is no justification to withhold approval solely on the ground that the revision of pay scales would exceed the permissible expenditure of an A. P. M. C. ( 13 ) IN the light of my above discussion, i hold that. the action of the c. M. O. , respondent No. 1 is wholly unauthorised and illegal. I, therefore, quash the impugned communications and orders and issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to respondent No. 2 to implement its decision dated 3. 6. 77 (Ex. A) to revise the pay scales of the petitioners and make payments thereto to them. ( 14 ) RULE issued is made absolute. ( 15 ) IN the circumstances of the case, i direct the parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .