BINDA KUNWAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD earned Counsel for the petitioner and earned Counsel for the State and also for respondent No. 5.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is very limited.

(3.) FROM the order impugned prima facie, it appears that the revision application was entertained and disposed of by the Additional Collector, West Champaran at Bettiah. Sec. 16 of the Act envisages that the Collector of the District may, on an application made to him in this behalf or for the purpose of satisfying himself to the legality or propriety of any order made under this Act or Rules made there under by any authority or officer, call for and examine the record of any case, pending before or disposed of by such authority or officer and pass such order, as he thinks fit. In view of Sec. 16 of the Act, it was the Collector of the District alone, who was competent to entertain and dispose of the revision filed under the provisions of the Act. In the case of Sharikar Shukla V/s. State and Ors. 2000 (3) PUR 839, this Court held that Sec. 16 of the Act confers revisional power only on the Collector of the District and no jurisdiction can be conferred upon an au throaty by consent of the party.