Bombay High Court
Parmeshwar Sihoratan Bohara
Versus
State of Maharashtra
Decided On:

Headnote:Clause 24-AIlotment of rare price shop under clause 3- Claim of co-operative society not tenable-Challenge-Application to State Government maintainable-Clause 24 not a bar.-Clause 24 specifically mentions that from the order of the Collector, a revision shall lie to the Commissioner, and from the order of the Commissioner the aggrieved party can maintain a revision before the State Government. It may be that the Commissioner is not mentioned in clause 3. but clause 24, which provides for revision specifically mentions the Commissioner as a revisional authority. The assumption that the revisional power of the State Government does nut take in order passed by the Commissioner is not sustainable in view of the language of clause 24. It should not be forgotten that once the revisional authority after hearing the party confirms the order that order alone will be the effective order because of the doctrine of merger. Once the revisional authority confirms the order the order of the lower authority merges with the order of the revisional authority even otherwise the order of the Commissioner in revision has to be treated as an order under clause 3 of the Regulation. What is significant that this aspect is taken care of ill clause 24 itself because as noted, clause 24 says the appropriate authority can suspend or cancel any authorisation issued or deemed to be issued under clause 3", This is Court view in effect makes the order passed by the Commissioner as one passed under clause 3, and this can be attained even by the operation of the theory of merger once the contested matter is disposed of by the Commissioner on a proper revision filed before him. Here is noted clause 24 itself makes the order by the Commissioner deemed to be one under clause 3 of the Regulation.

       For Citation 1997 (2) Mali LJ 252 at pp. 257. 258