INDUKURI MARRI RAJU Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ELURU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer Eluru dated 31-7-1959 made in Roc. E. 10073 of 1957 on the file of the said Officer, suspending the petitioner pending enquiry into the charges said to have been framed against him.

(2.) Two points have been taken in this revision petition by Mr. Narasimhachari, learned counsel for the petitioner: firstly, that the R.D.O. who pastil the order of suspension had no jurisdiction as he is riot the Collector within be meaning of section 7 (1) A of the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act (III of 1895) (hereinafter referred to as the Act); and secondly, that the order of suspension without giving a copy of the charges to the petitioner and without giving him an opportunity to show cause against the suspension is illegal and opposed to the principles of natural justice and therefore, requites to beat aside.

(3.) On the first point, it is true that the expression 'Collector' has not ben defined as such in the Act. But a reference to similar provisions elsewhere show that the expression 'Collector' has been used comprehensively to include the die District Collector as well as the Revenue Divisional Officer exercising function under those provisions. The doubt, however, is cleared by reference to section 23 of the Act which provides for an appeal against the order of the Collector passed under section 6 or 7 of the Act and from every decree or order passed by a Collector in a suit preferred under section 13, to the District Collector which dearly indicates that the Act has used the expression 'Collector' as excluding the District Collector, observing that original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction cannot be exercised by the same authority in respect of the same matter. Hence I experience no faculty in coming to the conclusion that the expression 'Collector' used in the Act includes and means the Revenue Divisional Officer or the Deputy or the Assistant Collector exercising jurisdiction under Sections 6, 7 and 13. Therefore the R.D.O. who made the order in this case had jurisdiction to exercise the functions under section 7 of the Act.