AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J
1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-
“10.1. Issue writ of or in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order/letter dated 22.12.2018.
10.2. Issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding and directing the respondents to consider the revision petition of the petitioner preferred under clause 3.12 of the Chhattisgarh Industrial land and Building Management Rules, 2015.
10.3. A writ of or in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent to not to proceed any further with the implementation of the order dated 29.06.2018 until the revision petition preferred by the petitioner is considered on merits and as per the provisions ofChhattisgarh Industrial land and Building Management Rules, 2015.
10.4. Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case to give complete relief to the petitioner.”
2) Mr. Ankit Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would make the following submissions:-
A. The petitioner preferred a revision against the order dated 29.06.2018 passed by the Secretary, Chhattisgarh Government, Commerce and Industry Department for restoration of lease deed.
B. A revision was preferred by the petitioner on 29.06.2018 and the Deputy Secretary, State of Chhattisgarh, Commerce and Industry Department vide order dated 22.12.2018 dismissed the revision on the ground that under the Chhattisgarh Audyogik Bhoomi Avam Bhawan Prabandhan Niyam, 2015, (for short, Rules, 2015), there is no provision of review.
C. The petitioner had preferred a revision according to the Rules, 2015 which states that the authority concerned/State Government may exercise the power of Revision suo moto or may call for record.
D. He would submit that when an authority can exercise revisional power suo moto, it should exercise such power on the application made by an aggrieved party. Thus, he would pray to quash the order dated 22.12.2018.
3) On the other hand, Mr. Vinay Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State would submit that according to the Rules, 2015, the power of revision can be exercised suo moto and there is no provision to prefer a revision petition before the authorities against any order. He would further submit that the petitioner in the revision petition has prayed for suo moto exercise of the power of revision; therefore, it was not maintainable.
4) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the file.
5) In the opinion of this Court, where an authority has the power to exercise power of revision suo moto, it should also exercise that power on an application of an aggrieved party; otherwise, there would be anarchy. To maintain judicial discipline and the rule of law, the authority must exercise its power fairly. According to the Rules, 2015, particularly Rule 3.12, the State Government may exercise suo moto power of revision, call for records, and pass appropriate orders. The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Secretary, Chhattisgarh Government Commerce and Industries Department, whereby his lease deed was canceled. Same was rejected by respondent No.1 vide order dated 22.12.2018 on the ground that there is no provision for review. The findings recorded by Respondent No.1 vide order dated 22.12.2018 appear to be perverse. Accordingly, the order is quashed.
6) Respondent No.1 is directed to decide the revision preferred by the petitioner strictly in accordance with the law after affording a due opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. The petitioner would be at liberty to make a suitable application before the authority concerned with regard to the subsequent development(s).
7) Accordingly, this petition is hereby allowed.