MAGANLAL LALBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) So far as the first contention raised by Mr. Vyas is concerned it requires the examination of sub-sec. (5) of sec. 294 and sec 305 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act 1961 Sub-sec. (5) of sec. 294 provides as follows:

(2.) Sec. 305 inter alia empowers the State Government to call for and examine the record of proceedings of any officer for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed by him and may revise or modify the order as it may deem just. The order made by the Development Commissioner under sec. 294 (5) is an order made by an officer subordinate to the State Government. In fact it is an order made by an officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf by general or special order (to quote the expression used in sub-sec. (5) of sec. 294). Therefore under sec. 305 it was within the competence of the State Government to revise the order of the Development Commissioner.

(3.) It has next been argued by Mr. Vyas that the power which was exercised by the Development Commissioner under sub-sec. (5) of sec. 294 was the power conferred upon the State Government and that the- refore the State Government cannot revise its own order. I am not imp- ressed by this argument because sub-sec. (5) of sec. 294 does not confer any power on the State Government. It confers power upon the officer authorized by the State Government. The power which has been conferred upon the State Government is the power of authorizing an officer to act under sub-sec. (5) of sec. 294. Once the State Government authorizes a particular officer the power conferred under sub-sec. (5) of sec. 294 belongs to that officer. When such an officer exercises power under sub-sec. (5) of sec. 294 it is within the competence of the State Govern- ment to revise his order under sub-sec. (5). It may be noted in this context that sub-sec. (5) of sec. 294 and sec. 305 are two independent sources of power exercisable by two different bodies. In my opinion therefore the first contention raised by Mr. Vyas is without any substance and is rejected. Petition allowed.