KATTA LATHA Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only point for consideration in this writ petition is whether a revision would lie to Collector under Clause 18 of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1973 (for short 'the order') against the order passed by the Joint Collector under Cl. 17 (1) (i) of the Order. For proper appreciation of the point at issue, it would be profitable to extract Clauses 17 and 18 of the Order. THEy read as under.

(2.) IT is clear from a plain reading of Clause 18 of the Order that a revision would lie to the Collector only against the order passed under Cl. 17 (1) (i) of the Order. IT is significant to note that there is no reference whatsoever to Clause 17(2) in Cl. 18 of the Order. In the case on hand, there is no dispute that the fourth respondent, namely, Smt. L. Subbulu filed a revision before the first respondent, namely, the District Collector, Prakasham District, Ongole, A.P. against the order of the 2nd respondent viz., Joint Collector, Prakasham District, Ongole passed under Cl. 17 (2) of the Order. In the circumstances, there should be no hesitation to hold that the first respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the revision filed by the fourth respondent herein. Therefore, the Writ Petition must succeed. IT is, accordingly, allowed. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the second respondent, namely, the Joint Collector, Prakasham District, Ongole, is directed to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the third respondent, namely, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Prakasham District, Ongole in R.C.No. 3452/93 dt. 29-6-1997 positively by 31-12-1997. No costs.