The power of revision under Section 39 of the Karnataka Religious and Charitable Institutions Act, 1927 can be exercised by the revisional authority only in cases where a right of appeal is not provided.

( 1 ) IN this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india, the petitioner has called in question the correctness of the order dated 20th April, 1999 made in Revision No. 18 of 1998 by the 5th respondent-Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') rejecting the revision petition filed by the petitioner under section 39 of the Karnataka Religious and Charitable Institutions act, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ).

( 2 ) A few facts which may be relevant for the disposal of this petition may be stated as hereunder: the petitioner who was aggrieved by the order dated 17th July, 1996 passed by the 1st respondent, a copy of which has been produced as annexure-A filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent under Section 38 of the Act. Consequent upon the dismissal of the appeal by the 2nd respondent by means of his order dated 27th May, 1997, the petitioner challenged the said order by filing a second appeal before the 4th respondent- commissioner for Religious and Charitable Inams (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner' ). The 4th respondent by means of order dated 27th December, 1997 while allowing the second appeal filed by the petitioner rejected certain claims of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had filed a revision petition before the 5th respondent under Section 39 of the Act. The 5th respondent in the impugned order rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioner on the ground the revision petition is not maintainable. Aggrieved by the said order, as noticed by me earlier this petition is filed.

( 3 ) SRI Gopal, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the conclusion reached by the 5th respondent that the revision petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable is totally erroneous in law. He submitted that the Tribunal on an erroneous interpretation placed on section 39 of the Act has failed to exercise jurisdiction conferred on it and therefore, the order impugned is liable to be quashed by this Court. Elaborating this submission, he pointed out that a third appeal is provided against the order passed by the second Appellate Authority under sub-section (2) of Section 38 of the Act and the third appeal is maintainable only on a point of law or usage having the force of law; and under these circumstances it is for the party aggrieved by the order passed by the Appellate Authority either to file a third appeal as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 38 of the Act or to file a revision petition as provided under Section 39 of the Act. He submits so long as there is no limitation provided under Section 39 of the Act limiting the power of the authority not to entertain an appeal whenever a right of appeal is provided, it is not permissible for the revisional authority to entertain the revision petition filed by the party aggrieved by an order made in appeal. It is his submission that the Tribunal and the Courts will have to interpret the provisions of law as it is, so long as the language employed in a provision of law is clear and it is not ambiguous. The learned counsel pointed out that since the language employed under Section 39 of the Act is not ambiguous or vague and it being clear, the Tribunal has seriously erred in law in taking the view that the revision is not maintainable. In support of this plea he relied upon the decision of the Supreme court in the case of M/s. Doypack Systems Private Limited v union of India and Others.

( 4 ) HOWEVER, Sri Nagarajulu Naidu, learned Additional Government advocate appearing for respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5 and Sri Shankarnaray- ana Bhat, learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent strongly supported the impugned order. They submitted that since it cannot be disputed that the petitioner has a right of third appeal provided under sub-section (2) of Section 38 of the Act, the revision filed by the petitioner was not maintainable. According to the le