G KALE GOWDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the reasons I have given in Writ petition No. 5433 of 1986, the challenge made to validity of sub-section f3) of section 4 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads. Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal panchayaths and Nyaya Panehayat Act, 1983, does not survive for consideration.

(2.) It was atgued by Mr Papanna, learned counsel for the petitioners that the Divisional Commissioner has erred in law in revising the order of the deputy Commissioner without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to be heard. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the language of sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Act. The power conferred on the Divisional Commissioner under sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Act is the power of revision and one must understand it as such taking judicial notice of the word employed, namely, the word 'revision'.

(3.) The person who made the order is certainly a person concerned, i. e. , in this case under Section 4 (1) of the Act, the Deputy Commissioner concerned. Power of revision under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act is both suo moto and on the application of persons aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner made under Section 4 (1) of the Act. Similarly, when that power is sought to be exercised on the motion of persons aggrieved by the order of the deputy Commissioner, then, the Deputy commissioner alone will be the party concerned along with those who have moved the Divisional Commissioner.