Judgment S.K.Katriar, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 18.2.97 (Annexure 1), passed by respondent no.1 (the Managing Director, Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board), whereby Revision Case No.5/96, has been dismissed on the ground of delay, and for further prayer to quash the appellate order dated 4.12.95 (Annexure 4), whereby respondent no.2 (the Regional Director of the Board, Bhagalpur), dismissed the appeal, and affirmed assessment order dated 20.5.94 (Annexure 3), passed by respondent no.3 (the Marketing Committee, Dumka). 2. The petitioner is the owner of a Rice Mill which ist running in the name and style of Sheo Shankar Rice & Flour Mills, situate at village Rameshwar, district Dumka. According to the petitioner, he purchases paddy from diverse sellers within the Market Committee, outside the Market Committee but within the State of Bihar, and from West Bengal. According to the provisions of Section 27 of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Rules thereunder, every purchaser has to pay market fee on the goods purchased by him within the jurisdiction of that market area. The petitioner was served with notice under Sec.27 of the Act for assessment of the market fee payable by him on the paddy purchased by him within the market area. In spite of repeated notice, he did not appear and, accordingly, respondent no.3 passed the assessment order dated 20.5.94, based on best judgment assessment whereby the petitioner has been called upon to pay a sum of Rs.15,433.90p. along with penalty quantified at Rs.3858.00, totalling Rs.19,291.90p. The petitioner thereafter preferred appeal before respondent no.2 which has been disposed of by order dated 4.12.95 (Annexure 4), whereby the assessment order has been affirmed in full, and the amount of penalty has been enhanced. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred revision application before respondent no. 1, which has been dismissed by order dated 18.2.97 (Annexure 1), on the ground of delay. Hence the present writ petition. 3. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a buyer is required to pay market fee on the purchase made by him within the jurisdiction of the market area. In his submission, the assessing authority has not recorded the requisite finding that the sale and purchase of paddy took place within the jurisdiction of the Market Committee, Dumka. In his submission, the assessing authority has not recorded the requisite finding that the sale and purchase of paddy took place within the jurisdiction of the Market Committee, Dumka. The appellate court has made the same mistake and, therefore, the orders are bad in law. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the matter is concluded by findings of facts. Relying on the provisions of Rule 82(vii) of the rule, he further submits that the petitioner has not been submitting the declaration in form XVIII, thus disentitling him to certificates of exemption from the Market Committee. He further submits that even if for the sake of argument it is held by this Court that the findings of facts recorded by the assessing authority and affirmed in appeal are bad in law, the petitioner cannot get any relief because the revision application has been dismissed on the ground of delay which has become final. 5. Having considered the rival submissions, I am of the view that this writ petition has to be allowed in part, and has to be substantially dismissed. The order of the assessing authority (Annexure 3), records that the petitioner never cooperated with the assessing authority and has been running the business in an arbitrary and recalcitrant manner, and its returns are extremely unsatisfactory. The entire issue was considered in depth by the appellate authority and the findings of facts have been affirmed. I, therefore, hold that the order dated 20.5.94 (Annexure 3), passed by the assessing authority, is hereby upheld in full. 6. However, the appellate authority has made an error in enhancing the penalty. Law is well settled that no petitioner or appellant can be worse off than the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner is, therefore, right in his submission that in the absence of an appeal or cross appeal by the respondents, the penalty could not have been enhanced. In that view of the matter, the appellate order is modified to the extent that enhancement of penalty is hereby set aside, and the penalty of Rs.3858 passed by the assessing authority is restored. 7. There is another aspect of the matter which must be indicated. In that view of the matter, the appellate order is modified to the extent that enhancement of penalty is hereby set aside, and the penalty of Rs.3858 passed by the assessing authority is restored. 7. There is another aspect of the matter which must be indicated. By order dated 4.5.98, passed by this Court while admitting this writ petition, this Court had stayed operation of the appellate order (Annexure 3), to the extent that the petitioner shall not be compelled to pay the enhanced penalty. It, therefore, follows as a matter of corollary that the petitioner was required to pay the demand notice as per the assessment order. Learned counsel for the parties were unable to inform the Court during the course of oral arguments whether or not the petitioner has deposited as per the demand notice in pursuance of the assessment order. In that view of the matter, I hereby direct that the respondents shall be entitled to realize interest on a sum of Rs.19,291.90 p. with effect from 20.5,94 till the date of payment, if the aforesaid order dated 4.5.98 passed by this Court has not been carried out. 8. In the result, this writ petition is allowed in part, and is dismissed for the rest. The amount of penalty enhanced by the appellate order (Annexure 3), is hereby set aside. The assessment order dated 20.5.94 (Annexure 3) is upheld in full. The respondents may realize the interest in accordance with the direction hereinabove.