CHANDRAVALLY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question that arises for consideration in this original petition is whether the State Government has a further power of revision when once the Commissioner of Civil Supplies has exercised his revisional powers under Clause. 45 (11) of the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966 (for short, the Order)over the appellate order passed by the District Collector under Clause. 45 (10) (iii) of the Order. In pursuance of a notice dated 30 51972 inviting applications for the issue of a new licence as dealer in respect of A. R. D. No. 21, the petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent submitted applications. THE District Supply Officer, Quilon granted the licence to the 2nd respondent. THE petitioner took up the matter in appeal before the District Collector, quilon. THE appeal was allowed, the order of the District Supply Officer appointing the 2nd respondent as A. R D. was set aside and in bis place the petitioner was appointed as A. R. D. No. 21 by Ext. P 1 order by the District collector. THE petitioner made the security deposit and he was granted licence k. Dis. 3145/72/g5 dated 22-1-197 3. THE petitioner was allowed to open the depot as A. R. D. No. 525 with effect from 28 11973.

(2.) AGAINST Ext. P-1 order of the District Collector, the 2nd respondent filed a revision before the Commissioner of Civil Supplies under clause. 45 (11) of the Order. By Ext. P-2 order dated 7 31973 the Commissioner of Civil Supplies dismissed the revision filed by the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent then filed another revision before the 1st respondent-State and the 1st respondent by Ext. P 3 order dated 13 11-1973 cancelled Ext. P 1 order of the District Collector, Ext. P 2 order of the Commissioner of Civil Supplies and the order dated 2-81972 of the District Supplies Officer and ordered that steps are to be taken for the appointment of a new A. R. D. by the competent authority within a month. The petitioner in this original petition seeks to quash the above order Ext. P 3.

(3.) THE learned Government Pleader contends that the 1st respondent-State has power under Clause. 45 (H) of the Order to interfere in revision with any order passed by a subordinate authority under Clause. 45. According to the learned Government Pleader, this power is there over orders in revision passed by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies under Clause. 45 (11)itself THE State Government in revision can set aside an order in revision passed by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies as well and remit the case back to any authority directing such further action as the State Government considers proper in the circumstances of the case. THE learned Government Pleader points out that this is what has been done in this case. THE learned Government pleader then contends that there is nothing wrong in conferring concurrent powers on two authorities and refers to S. 26 and 27 of the Administration of evacuee Property Act, 1950 where revisional powers are conferred on both the custodian and the Custodian General. It is pertinent to note that S. 26 which confers revisional powers on the Custodian is no longer part of the above Act as the same has been repealed by Act 91 of 1956. THE learned Government Pleader then points out that under S. 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 such concurrent powers are conferred. THE learned Government Pleader further contends that the word 'or' appearing in 'the Government or the Commissioner' in Clause. 45 (11) is to be read as 'and' and relies on the decision of the house of Lords in Reg. v. Federal Steam Navigation ( (1974) 1 W. L. R. 505 ). In the above case which was under the Oil in Navigable Waters Act, 1955 as amended by the Oil in Navigable Waters Act, 1963 the question that arose for consideration was whether both the owner and master of a ship were liable for the offence of oil discharge in prohibited sea area under S. 1 (1) of the Act. THE House of Lords said: "the language of S. 1 (1) led irresistibly to the conclusion that it was the intention of Parliament that both the owner and master should be liable for a breach of its provisions and that both could be prosecuted for an offence thereunder, and that, accordingly, the word 'or' was to be construed conjunctively since any other construction produced unintelligible and absurd results. " I am at a loss to understand how the above decision can be of any support to the contentions advanced by the learned Government pleader. In this case, it is the construction put forward by the learned government Pleader, which, if accepted, will lead to absurd results. THE learned counsel for the 2nd respondent supports the contentions of the learned government Pleader.