ORDER 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 27.8.1997 (Annexure 15) passed by the Managing Director of the Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board, Patna, While acting as revisional authority under section 27C of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960 (in short 'the Act') in Revision Petition No.6/96, rejecting the revision on the ground that it is not maintainable under section 27C of the Act. 2. Under section 27C of the Act revision application is to be filed within 45 days of the passing of the order. 3. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the limitation is to commence from the date of the knowledge of the order and not from the actual date of the passing of the order. In this regard learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Madan Lal vs. State of U.P., reported in AIR 1975 S.C. 2085 . 4. On the other hand, Mr. Bajla, learned counsel appearing for the Marketing Board submitted that the petitioner was required to file an application for condonation of delay explaining the reason for the same. 5. Mr. Mahto, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Naya Dawakhana vs. State, reported in 1989 BBCJ 253 : 1990(2) PLJR 616, wherein it has been held that by such quasi-judicial authority which does not act as a Court, the question of invoking the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act does not and cannot arise. Under such circumstance, it has been contended that in view of the law settled in the case of Madan Lal vs. State (supra); the only requirement was that the petitioner should bring to the notice of the revisional authority about the date of knowledge which fact was brought in the revision application filed before him. 6. Mr. Bajla, in reply, submitted that from the impugned order it does not appear that the question regarding the date of knowledge was ever agitated before the revisional authority. 7. In the absence of any dispute being raised with respect to the date of knowledge, in the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the revisional authority should have considered the revision on merit instead of rejecting it on the ground of limitation. 8. 7. In the absence of any dispute being raised with respect to the date of knowledge, in the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the revisional authority should have considered the revision on merit instead of rejecting it on the ground of limitation. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order, contained in Annexure 15, is set aside and the matter is remitted back of the revisional authority for consideration of revision on merit. The petitioner must appear before the revisional authority within four weeks from today.