Judgment Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. 1. Ordinarily, this sort of appeal should not have been entertained by this Court as the learned Trial Judge found no fault in the impugned order of Revising authority of Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce & Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). But we intervene in this matter as an exceptional case. The Revising authority dismissed the revision application in limine on the ground of, so to say, alternative remedy. After hearing the learned counsel for parties, we think the approach of the Revising Authority is incorrect for he has no option, unlike the Constitutional writ Court, but to entertain revision application once ground therefore is made out. We notice the power of the revising authority is very wider as provided under Section 12-F of the Act because it does not depend upon the decision of the appellate authority alone. So, we set out the said provision: Section 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 authorized 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. 2. It would appear, the Revising authority can call for records and examine the propriety and legality of the order passed even by the first authority. 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. 2. It would appear, the Revising authority can call for records and examine the propriety and legality of the order passed even by the first authority. Here, the appellant-writ petitioner has alleged that the order of the first authority suffers from gross impropriety and illegality. So, it could be examined by the Revising authority instead of asking to travel through appellate forum. As correctly pointed by the learned counsel for appellant, the learned Trial Judge, in our view, has not examined this aspect of the matter. His Lordship thought that the concept of exhaustion of remedy in a matter of this nature should be followed. The learned Trial Judge seems to have doubted the bona fide of the appellant, that in order to circumvent the provision of pre-deposit of the tax amount, the appellant had taken such course of action. 3. It is easy to doubt the conduct of any person. But, before we entertain such a doubt, we must examine whether there is any material to doubt. 4. While examining the papers, namely, the revision application, we find the allegations of impropriety and illegality have been made. Whether the said allegations are correct or not can be ascertained only by the revising authority after hearing the other side and after examining the material placed before it, it would be highly unjust to deprive a person beneficial avenue provided in the law basing on doubt. The Revising authority has mechanically passed an order asking the appellant to prefer an appeal. We think there are cases where illegality and impropriety, namely, lack of jurisdiction can be examined by the superior authority ignoring the power of the immediately subordinate authority. The theory of exhaustion of remedy is applicable only in case of writ jurisdiction. If it is done, in every case then what is the use of a provision for supervisory jurisdiction by way of revision. The learned Trial Judge in our considered opinion overlooked this aspect of the matter presumably because of lack of proper assistance. However, respecting wishes of His Lordship we decide to strike a balance to deal with this matter. 5. Under the circumstances, we think that following order will sub-serve the interest of justice. 6. The learned Trial Judge in our considered opinion overlooked this aspect of the matter presumably because of lack of proper assistance. However, respecting wishes of His Lordship we decide to strike a balance to deal with this matter. 5. Under the circumstances, we think that following order will sub-serve the interest of justice. 6. In the event, the appellant deposits 50% of the market fee, as assessed by the first authority and secure balance 50% by way of a bank guarantee in any nationalized bank of the local area, the learned Revising authority shall decide this revision application on merits. Such deposit and furnishing of bank guarantee shall be made within four weeks from date. In the event, the directions are carried out, the Revising authority shall consider the matter in accordance with law within his power of revision, but not as an appellate authority within a period of three months from the date of compliance as above. In default this appeal will stand dismissed and this order will stand recalled. 7. The appeal is thus disposed of. No order as to costs. Disposed off.