N DIVAKARAN Vs. TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant petitioner was absent before the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge however, looked into the case and felt that there is no ground to interfere with the order of the State Government made in exercise of its revisional power in modifying the punishment imposed on the 6th respondent having regard to the fact that he has been running the shop for a long period without any punishment and that the lapse now proved is not of a serious character. The learned single Judge therefore declined to interfere.

(2.) What is contended by the appellant in this appeal is that the order having been made in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction by the Commissioner under R.45(11) of the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966 the State Government could not have interfered with that order in exercise of its revisional powers. Reliance was placed in support of this contention en the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court reported in 1975 KLT 639 between Chandnavally v. State of Kerala and another decided on Ist July, 1975. It has been laid down in the said decision as follows:

(3.) It is clear from this provision that if an authority subordinate to the State Government like the Commissioner has exercised his revisional powers under R.45(11) of the Kerala Rationing Order, the exercise of such power by an authority subordinate to the Government is subject to further revision by the State Government, which has been conferred with such power expressly by R.71. Hence after R.71 came into force it is obvious that the State Government can exercise the final revisional power and revise an order made by the Commissioner or any authority subordinate to it, made under any of the provisions of the Kerala Rationing Order, as the State Government has been conferred with a superior power of revision under R.71. Hence after R.71 of the Kerala Rationing Order came into force, it cannot be said that the State Government cannot exercise its revisional power, such superior power having been expressly conferred by R.71. Hence this appeal fails and is dismissed.