ORDER C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J. 1. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No. 1 in refusing to entertain the revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 12-F of the A.P.(Agricultural Produce & Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 (for short the Act) as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to respondent No. 1 to entertain the revision petition filed by it on merits and to dispose of the same in accordance with law. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The petitioner is an exporter of frozen buffalo meat and frozen & aseptic fruit products. It felt aggrieved by the assessment made by respondent No. 2 towards market fees for the years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13, whereunder respondent No. 2 has proposed to levy 1% market fee on the total value of carcasses purchased by the petitioner during the said four years. The petitioner has filed W.P. No. 16073 of 2014 assailing the said assessment. This Court by order, dated 27.08.2014, dismissed the said writ petition only on the ground of availability of alternative remedies under Sections 12-E, 12-F and 12-G of the Act. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed a revision petition before respondent No. 1 under Section 12-F of the Act. The said revision petition was refused to be entertained by respondent No. 1 by order bearing No. S-II/P-183/2014, dated 16.10.2014, on the ground that the petitioner has filed the revision petition without availing the remedy of appeal under Section 12-E of the Act. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed this writ petition. 5. At the hearing, Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that under the scheme of the Act, an aggrieved party is provided with two parallel remedies, namely, an appeal under Section 12-E and a revision petition under Section 12-F, and that the provisions of Section 12-F are not hedged in by the condition that a revision petition is maintainable only against an order passed under Section 12-E of the Act. 6. 6. In order to appreciate this submission, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of Section 12-E to the extent relevant and Section 12-F, which are as under:- "12-E. Appeals:- (1) Any trader objecting to an order of assessment passed, or proceeding recorded by the assessing authority, under the provisions of this Act may, within, thirty days from the date on which the order or proceeding was served on him appeal to the Regional Joint Director of Marketing having jurisdiction over the notified area concerned (hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Authority): Provided that the Appellate Authority may admit an appeal preferred after the period of thirty days aforesaid, if it is satisfied that the trader has sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within that period. (2) Before preferring an appeal under this section, market fee shall be paid in accordance with the assessment made in the case and no appeal shall be entertained until the said market fee is paid. xxxxx 12-F. Revision by the Director of Marketing:- (1) The Director of Marketing may suo motu, or on an application made to him call for and examine the record of any order passed or proceeding recorded by any authority or officer subordinate to him or by any market committee or any authority or person authorised by it, under the provisions of this Act for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of such order or as to the regularity of such proceeding and may pass such order in reference thereto as he thinks fit: Provided that every application for the exercise of the powers under this section shall be preferred within thirty days from the date on which the order or proceedings was communicated to the applicant. (2) In relation to an order of assessment passed under this Act, the powers conferred by sub-section (1) shall be exercisable only within such period not exceeding three years from the date on which the order was served on the trader, as may be prescribed. (3) No order shall be passed under sub-section (1) enhancing any assessment unless opportunity has been given to the assessee to show cause against the proposed enhancement." 7. (3) No order shall be passed under sub-section (1) enhancing any assessment unless opportunity has been given to the assessee to show cause against the proposed enhancement." 7. It is no doubt true that the Director of Marketing is conferred with the revisional jurisdiction, which can be exercised either suo motu or on an application, to call for and examine the record of any order passed or proceeding recorded by any authority or officer subordinate to him or by any market committee or any authority or person authorised by it under the provisions of the Act for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of such order or as to the regularity of such proceeding, and pass an appropriate order thereafter on such examination. However, ordinarily an appeal is wider in scope than a revision. While examination in revision petition is confined to legality, propriety or regularity of such proceeding or order passed, the scope of appeal is not circumscribed by any such limitations. 8. Generally, a revision must precede the remedy of appeal. Indeed, an aggrieved party will stand to gain more if he first exhausts the remedy of appeal before invoking the revisional jurisdiction so that he could avail both the remedies in succession. However, as I could presume the only reason for the petitioner in not choosing to invoke the remedy of appeal appears to be a pre-condition prescribed in sub-section (2) of Section 12-E of the Act which obligates it to pay the entire assessment amount for maintaining the appeal. Evidently, to avoid such payment, the petitioner has straightaway approached the revisional authority bypassing the appeal remedy. 9. At the hearing, this Court has enquired from the counsel for the petitioner whether it is willing to deposit the entire market fees as envisaged under sub-section (2) of Section 12-E of the Act for maintaining the revision petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner after consulting his client has candidly reported that his client is not willing to make such deposit. From this conduct of the petitioner, the presumption drawn by this Court that the petitioner has approached the revisional authority with a view to avoid deposit of market fees before the appellate authority stood fortified. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner after consulting his client has candidly reported that his client is not willing to make such deposit. From this conduct of the petitioner, the presumption drawn by this Court that the petitioner has approached the revisional authority with a view to avoid deposit of market fees before the appellate authority stood fortified. 10. If the legislature felt that the remedies of appeal and revision run parallel to each other and an aggrieved party has an option to file a revision petition without availing the remedy of appeal, it would not have envisaged sub-section (2) in Section 12-E of the Act, whereunder a condition is imposed for payment of assessed market fees for maintaining the appeal. In other words, the petitioner is seeking to frustrate the said legislative intent by straightaway approaching the revisional authority circumventing the remedy of appeal with a view to avoid payment of market fees. 11. On the analysis as above, I do not find any illegality in the order of respondent No. 1 in refusing to entertain the revision petition and relegating the petitioner to the remedy of appeal. 12. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 13. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P. No. 40358 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous. Petition dismissed