AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, takes exception to the order dated 17.02.2012 (Annexure-P/2) passed by the Additional Collector and the order dated 20.08.2014 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Additional Commissioner, whereby the order of Additional Collector aforesaid is upheld.
Criticizing these orders, it is urged by Shri Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner that learned Sub Divisional Officer has rightly passed the order dated 10.05.2008 (Annexure-P/6). Learned Additional Collector and Commissioner have erred in taking a different view. He submits that in the event this Court does not interfere with the orders impugned, petitioner may be given liberty to rely on relevant documents.
Shri Yadav, learned P.L. and Smt. Patel have no objection to this innocuous prayer.
So far the impugned orders are concerned, it is seen that the orders are not called in question on the ground of competency of the authorities. No procedural impropriety or perversity is pointed out which warrants interference of this Court. The learned Collector has merely remitted the matter back and directed the Sub Divisional Officer to hear the parties on merit and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. He exercised his judicial discretion which cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or improper.
The scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is limited. This Court is not obliged to sit and act as Appellate Authority. In absence of showing any jurisdictional error, palpable impropriety or manifest perversity, no case is made out. However, in view of the stand of the parties, liberty is given to the petitioner to file and rely on relevant documents before the Sub Divisional Officer.
Needless to mention that the Sub Divisional Officer may consider the said documents in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observations, petition is disposed of. No costs.