A tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain an application for amendment, but such an application should be disposed of on its own merits by the court or tribunal after hearing both parties.

S. B. Sinha, J.

1. This application is directed against a part of the order dated 16-11-1984 passed by the Joint Director Consolidation as contained in Annexure-8 to the writ application.

2. In view of the orders proposed to. be passed, it is not necessary to state the fact of the matter in great details.

3. The petitioner filed an objection under Sec.10 of the Bihar consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred to as the said Act) in respect of two plots before the Consolidation Officer.

4. The petititioner, thereafter, filed two applications, one for amend ment at the said objection petition with a prayer that he be permitted to put his signature on the said application and in the second application he made prayer that eight other plots of land be directed to be included in the original application.

5. According to the contesting respondents, the Consolidation Officer allowed the first application for amendment but did not pass any specific order with regard to the second one.

6. Despite the same, the Consolidation Officer made enquiries in respect of the ten plots and passed orders on 3-7-1982 in favour of the petitioner which is contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application.

7. The respondents preferred an appeal against the said order dated 3-7-1982 passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Appellate Authority admittedly remitted the matter back to the Consolidation Officer for a fresh decision in accordance with law.

8. After remand, the respondents filed an application that parties be heard with regard to the second application for amendment, as according to them, the said application for amendment was not maintainable.

9. The Consolidation Officer by reason of an order dated 5-9-1984 as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application rejected the said prayer inter alia holding that the respondents intended to delay the proceeding of the case.

10. Against the aforementioned order dated 5-9-1984 passed by the consolidation Officer as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application, a revision application was filed by the respondents in terms of Sec.35 of the said Act.

11. By reason of the impugned order dated 16-11-1984 as contained in Annexure 8 to the writ application, the Joint Director, Consolidation held that the Consolidation Officer could not have allowed the application for amendment filed on behalf of the petitioner. In his order dated 16-11-1984 the Revisional Authority, however, directed the Consolidation officer to proceed with the objection filed by the petitioners in terms of directions given by the Appellate Authority.

12. Mr, Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised a short question in support of this application. The learned counsel submitted that as the order allowing the application for amendment of the objection filed by the petitioner under Sec.10 (2) of the said Act was not the subject matter of appellate the instance of the respondents, the Joint Director, Consolidation must be held to have misdirected himself in so far as he purported to have set aside the order despite the fact that he directed that the matter be enquired into in terms of the orders of remand passed by the Appellate Authority.

13. Respondents on the other hand, submitted that the second application for amendment filed by the petitioner was not maintainable in law as the same had been filed after a period of six years, although for filing such petition, a period of limitation of 30 days only has been prescribed.

14. In view of the fact that the respondents themselves have taken a categorical stand that no order was passed by the Consolidation Officer on the second application for amendment filed by the petitioner, in my opinion, the Joint Director, Consolidation Committee a grave illegality in going into merits on application for amendment of the petitioner.

15. By reason of the order dated 5-9-1984 as contained in Annexure-6 to the applicat