JODLIARAM Vs. PHOOSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This purports to be an appeal filed against two orders one of the Commissioner, Bikaner dated 3.11.59 and the other that of the Collector, Ganganagar dated 24.12.59. We have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully.

(2.) We have very carefully perused both the orders questioned before us. The order of the Commissioner dated 3.11.59 is purely an administrative order. It is a brief order running in about 3 lines and all that it does is to inform the Collector that the area which has been reserved had been done upon his own recommendation and it was not possible to cancel it now. The Collector therefore was directed to act in accordance with the orders passed already. This order cannot be said to have been passed in any judicial capacity or under any provision of law and we have no hesitation in holding that it is neither appealable nor revisable.

(3.) The next difficulty in the case is to find any connection between the Commissioners order dated 3.11.59 and that of the Collector dated 24.12.59. In the first instance the doctrine of merger does not apply to administrative orders and therefore it could not be said that the order of the Collector merged in that of the Commissioner dated 3.11.59. Even if we were to assume that there was a possibility of the doctrine of merger being extended to the orders under consideration the principle could not be applied in this case for the simple reason that the Collectors order comes after the order of the Commissioner and even at the risk of repetition we must point out that the order of the Commissioner dated 3.11.59 does not govern the Collectors order dated 24.12.59.