Judgment Ravi S.Dhavan and Aftab Alam JJ. 1. Initially a writ petition no. 2303 of 1997 had been filed by the appellant M/s Pooja Food Products (P) Limited in which the petitioner has prayed that the order dated 30.11.1996 passed by the Sub- divisional Officer cum Special Officer, Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Musallahpur, Patna on an assessment made in terms of section 27A of the Bihar Agriculture Produce Markets Act, 1960 be set aside. The contention in the writ petition was that the order cannot hold and that the authorities which passed the order has no jurisdiction. 2. The learned Judge on the writ petition was of the view that a statutory appeal has been provided. The order which was challenged was not interferred with and the petitioner was relegated to the alternative remedy so provided under section 27B of the Act as an appeal. 3. This in itself would have been end of the matter but when the petitioner filed the present Letters Patent Appeal No. 407/98 M/s Pooja Food Products (P) Limited vs. Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board & ors. the appeal was dismissed by a bench of which the learned Judge who had rendered the order on the writ petition was also a member. In the circumstances the petitioner filed Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, inevitably with a grievance that atleast the Honble Judge who had heard the writ petition should not have been a member to hear the Letters Patent Appeal. On such proposition the order of the Supreme Court logically and inevitably had to happen and it did. Simply the spirit of the Supreme Courts order is that no person should be Judge in his own cause. This chapter is now over. 4. The court is now considering the appeal. At the time when the writ petition had been filed the counter affidavit, as a return in answer to the writ petition, was not available as the writ petition had been dismissed in limine. 5. The picture apparently has changed while this court is considering the Letters Patent Appeal. This court has had the benefit of a reply being filed in answer to the appeal/prayer for an ad interim order. It would be best to reproduce certain paragraphs of the counter affidavit which are as follows : "7. 5. The picture apparently has changed while this court is considering the Letters Patent Appeal. This court has had the benefit of a reply being filed in answer to the appeal/prayer for an ad interim order. It would be best to reproduce certain paragraphs of the counter affidavit which are as follows : "7. That a perusal of the impugned order of assessment will show that even otherwise the appellant does not deserve the relief prayed for by it inasmuch as that he was given a notice to produce the books of accounts as far back as on 17.5.1996. This notice was issued when the Market Committee was in existence. Thereafter 11 further notices were issued to him by the said Market Committee, but he deliberately avoided appearance. 8. That in these circumstances, the Special Officer had to pass an ex parte order. 9. That the order of assessment further reveals that the appellant has suppressed its transactions to such an extent that against the payable Market Fee of Rs. 6,41,481.37 paise, he paid only a sum of Rs. 1,01,428.28 paise. 10. That the writ petition is not maintainable on another ground, that the petitioner has a statutory alternative remedy of appeal against the order of assessment. Admittedly instead of availing this alternative remedy of appeal the petitioner went directly in revision before the Managing Director of the Marketing Board. The Managing Director rightly refused to entertain that revision and dismissed the same on the ground that before approaching for revision the appellant must avail the statutory remedy of appeal against the assessment order. 11. That in the writ application the petitioner has assailed the said order of the Managing Director and there is no legal infirmity so far as that order is concerned." 6. At this juncture, the court may mention that in the writ petition the petitioner does not even refer as to which products it deals with. It is only upon an enquiry that the court has been intimated, and on this no party has taken an issue that the petitioner deals with Aata, Maida, Sujji and Chokar. In the circumstances, it is very difficult for the court to hold that the petitioner may not be dealing with the agriculture produce. 7. Thus, to sum up the situation the petitioner was at no stage without notice calling upon him to appear before the Market Committee. In the circumstances, it is very difficult for the court to hold that the petitioner may not be dealing with the agriculture produce. 7. Thus, to sum up the situation the petitioner was at no stage without notice calling upon him to appear before the Market Committee. In fact the petitioner received 11 notices but would not appear nor would produce the books of account as far back as 17.5.1996. It was in these circumstances that ex parte assessment had been occasioned. The petitioner simply does not desire to participate in the assessment proceedings. 8. The only emphasis which was pleaded before the court is that if the petitioner were to file an appeal he would have to deposit the amount. But, this is legislative intent of the Act. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the present case, and as noticed in this order, the High Court cannot encourage avoidance of an alternative remedy duly prescribed by law. 9. In the circumstances this court ought not to interfere in the present Letters Patent Appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. The interim order dated 25th June, 1999 is discharged.