Skip to content


N. Kochunarayanan Vs. the Chirakkaru Multipurpose Co-operative Society Ltd. No. 1894 - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Appeal No. 298 of 1976
Judge
Reported inAIR1980Ker16
ActsKerala Rationing Order, 1966
AppellantN. Kochunarayanan
RespondentThe Chirakkaru Multipurpose Co-operative Society Ltd. No. 1894
Appellant Advocate C.P. Sudhakara Prasad, Adv.
Respondent Advocate M.N. Sukumaran Nair and; B. Raman Pillai, Advs.
DispositionAppeal allowed
Cases ReferredChandravalli v. State of Kerala
Excerpt:
- .....of the rationing order, there is no right of revision to the government against an order passed on revision by the commissioner of civil supplies. on that short ground the learned judge held ex. p3 order to be without jurisdiction and allowed the writ petition and quashed the said order. the 4th respondent in the writ petition has preferred this appeal. 2. under sub-clause (1) of clause 45 of the kerala rationing order, the district supply officer has power to appoint a person as an authorised retail distributor in respect of any rationed article. sub-clause (10) of the said clause provides for a right of appeal against the order of appointment and sub-clause (11) provides for a further right of revision against the order passed by the appellate authority. these two sub-clauses.....
Judgment:

Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.

1. Theappellant was an authorised ration distributor appointed as such by the Taluk Supply Officer. The appointment was challenged by the 1st Respondent in an appeal preferred to the District Collector. The District Collector dismissed the appeal. The 1st Respondent preferred a further revision to the Commissioner of Civil Supplies. The Commissioner interfered with the orders of the Collector and the District Supply Officer and allowed the 1st Respondent's revision. The appellant preferred a further revision to the Government. That revision was allowed by the Government by Ext. P3 order. The 1st Respondent filed the writ petition to quash Ex. P3 order. The learned Judge by his judgment under appeal held that under the provisions of the Rationing Order, there is no right of revision to the Government against an order passed on revision by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies. On that short ground the learned Judge held Ex. P3 order to be without jurisdiction and allowed the writ petition and quashed the said order. The 4th Respondent in the writ petition has preferred this appeal.

2. Under Sub-clause (1) of Clause 45 of the Kerala Rationing Order, the District Supply Officer has power to appoint a person as an authorised retail distributor in respect of any rationed article. Sub-clause (10) of the said Clause provides for a right of appeal against the order of appointment and Sub-clause (11) provides for a further right of revision against the order passed by the appellate Authority. These two Sub-clauses may be extracted:

'Sub-clause (10) of Clause 45:--

Any person aggrieved by any order passed under this clause may within thirty (30) days from the date of service of such order appeal:--

(1) In the case of an order passed by the Commissioner to the Government,

(2) In the case of an order passed by the District Collector to the Commissioner, and

(3) In the case of an order passed by any other officer to such authority as the Government may specify in this behalf

and the decision of the Government, Commissioner or such authority shall subject to the provisions of Sub-clause (11) be final.'

'Sub-clause (11) of Clause 45:--

The Commissioner may, either suo motu or on application, call for and examine the records of any order passed by a subordinate authority under the provisions of this clause, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or to the propriety of such order, and may-

(a) confirm, modify or set aside the order

(b) imposed any penalty or set aside, reduce, confirm or enhance the penalty imposed by the order;

(c) remit the case to the authority which made the order or any other authority directing such further action or enquiry as Commissioner considers proper in the circumstances of the case; or

(d) pass such other order as the Commissioner may deem fit:

Provided that no application under this sub-clause shall be entertained after the expiry of 60 days from the date of service of the order against which the application is made:

Provided further that no order to tha disadvantage of a person shall be passed under this sub-clause unless the person concerned is given an opportunity of making any representation which he may wish to make against such order'.

From Sub-clause (10), it will be seen that the Government is treated as the Appellate Authority vis-a-vis an order passed by the Commissioner, so that the Commissioner is treated as an authority subordinate to the Government. Consistent with this, is the provision in Sub-clause (11) which we have already quoted. That confers a right of revision on the Government, or alternatively, on the Commissioner. The scope and the ambit of this power of revision provided by the clause, is to examine the records of any order passed by a subordinate authority. The revisional power conferred on the Government or on the Commissioner extends, in the case of either of them, to examination of the records of any order passed by a subordinate authority. The Commissioner being an authority subordinate to the Government, the Government's right of revision, in our view, extends to examining the order of the Commissioner. This aspect of the matter has now been clarified by the amendment effected to Sub-clause (11) of Clause 45, and a provision separately inserted by Clause 71 of the Order, providing for a right of revision by the Government in respect of orders passed by the Commissioner, or any other subordinate authority. In the view that we take, the judgment of the learned Judge cannot be sustained.

3. The learned single Judge had followed a prior decision of his, in Chandravalli v. State of Kerala (1975 Ker LT 639). For reasons noticed already, we cannot accept the decision as correct. We allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned Judge. The result is thatO. P. 2303 of 1975 will stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //