The Government's power to review its own orders under Section 679 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act is limited to orders passed under Section 679(2) and does not extend to orders passed under Section 679(1).

( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of certiorari seeking to quash G. O. Ms. No. 789, M. A. , dated 4-7-1963. It arises in the following circumstances.

( 2 ) THE petitioners have their houses either owned by them or living as tenants situated within a distance of ft furlong from the bone factory owned by the third respondent. It is contended by the petitioners that the Barkatpura locality, where this factory is situated, is a residential locality. The third respondent obtained a licence for running a factory for stacking and crushing bones for being used as fertilisers and other purposes. He used to slack bones in huge quantities in open space as there are no godowns and consequently it used to emanate foul smell whenever there was a slight drizzle and the factory used to emanate unbearable pungent smell making the life of the residents of that locality miserable. The petitioners, therefore, filed an application to the Municipal Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad objecting to the existence of the factory and grant or the licence to run the same under the Hyderabad Municipal Corpora-ration Act. The Municipal Commissioner through his order dated 3-10-1961 directed the third respondent to shift the factory from the said locality to any other non-residential locality.

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by that order, the third respondent preferred a revision petition under Section 679 of the Act before the Government. The State Government rejected the revision petition on 26-3-1962.

( 4 ) IT seems that the third respondent, after a lapse of over a year filed a petition before the Government on 4-6-1963. There is some conflict in regard to the character of this petition. While it is contended by the learned Advocate for the third respondent that it was an Independent revision petition filed under Section 679 of the Act against a separate order passed by the Commissioner on 2/04/1962 directing the third respondent to close the factory, it is contended by the petitioners that it was an application to review the previous order of 26/03/1962. Whatever that may be, the Government reviewed the order passed on 26/03/1962 and by and under and order dated 4-7-1963 directed the Commissioner to renew the licence on certain conditions. It is this order of the State Government that is now impugned in this writ petition.

( 5 ) THE principal contention of Mr. Babulu Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the Government had no power to review their earlier order of 26/03/1962. In order to appreciate this contention it is necessary to look into Section 679 of the Act. According to Sub-section (1) of that section, the Government is entitled, at any time for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality, propriety or regularity of any proceeding of or order passed by the Commissioner Or any officer subordinate to him, to call for the records and examine it and pass such orders with reference thereto and it thinks fit. There is no dispute that the order dated 26/03/1962 was passed by the Government at the instance of the third respondent under : Sub-section (1) of Section 679. The short question, therefore, is whether an order passed under Sub-section (1) of Section 679 can be revised by the Government under the power to review the orders. The only power, which the Government has to review Its own orders, is derived from Clause (c) of Sub-section (2) of Section 679 of the Act. That clause is in the following terms:-- "the Government may at any time on representation by Corporation or otherwise, revise modify or revoke any order passed under Clause (a ). " Reference to Clause (a) is obliviously to Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) as there are no clauses to Sub-section (1 ). According to this clause, where the Government is of opinion that the execution of any resolution or order passed by the Corporation or the doing of any act which is ab