A ministerial order that is perverse or based on irrelevant considerations is not a proper exercise of power and can be set aside by a court exercising jurisdiction in Certiorari.

( 1 ) THESE two rules arise out of the same matter and involve the common facts even though the petitioners in the two cases are different persons. The controversy arises out of the settlement of a liquor shop at Andul for which applications were invited by the Additional District Magistrate in the year 1964. The petitioners in both these casess were applicants for the same.

( 2 ) IN Civil Rule No. 1873 (W) of 1966 the applicant had a favourable order from the District Magistrate dated the 20th November 1964 (Annexure A) by which the District Magistrate selected the petitioner Jogesh Chandra Roy for the licence and required him to take certain steps by way of deposit etc upon the completion of which the licence in question would be granted to him. Respondent No. 6 Madan Mohan Nayek, who was disgruntled by the same order approached the Commissioner of Excise and the latter disposed of the appeal by his order dated tht 9th February, 1965 which is at annexure 'b' Though the Commissioner of Excise rejected the case of Madan Mohan Navek before him on the ground that he was outside the panel of 'three' drawn up by the Collector and had no previous experience as a licensee of a liquor shop the Commissioner of Excise remanded the matter to the Collector for re-assessing the merits of the three candidates in the panel prepared by the Collector, in view of the fact that tht assets of the petitioner Jogesh Chandra Roy stood in the name of his wife On the 27th February, 1965, the Collector made his revised order after the re-assessment referred to but it was again in favour of the petitioner and that order is at annexure 'c' to the petition, by which the petitioner was again asked to deposit certain sums etc in order to obtain licence.

( 3 ) IN the meantime, respondent No. 6 and some others preferred a further appeal to the Board of Revenue against the order of the Commissioner inasmuch as the Commissioner's order could not give them any relief as they were outside the panel of 'three' initially made by the Collector. The Board of Revenue however, upheld the order of the Commissioner of Excise, which meant that tht appellants got no relief. Opposite party No. 6 Madan Mohan Nayak as well as Bijon Kumar Saha the petitioner in the other case before me, went in revision to the State of West Bengal against the order of the Board of Revenue The revision petition was heard by the Minister in-charge of Excise and he disposed of the matter by his order at annexure 'e' dated the 30th April, 1966 By this order, the Minister set aside the orders passed by all the in-ferior authorities and instead of remanding the matter for further consideration, the Minister himself passed a direct order enjoining the Additional District Magistrate, Howrah, to grant the licence in question to Madan Mohan Navek, opposite party No. 6. This advice of the Minister was implement- ed by a formal order of the Governor issued on the 7th June, 1966 (Annexure E) to the petition. The petitioner has now brought this petition challenging the order of the Minister dated the 30th April, 1966 and has also asked for a Writ in the nature of Mandamus to direct the respondent No. 5 the Additional District Magistrate to issue a licence in his own favour.

( 4 ) TWO preliminary objections have been taken on behalf of the opposite parties. (A) It has been urged that the petitioner cannot obtain any relief inasmuch as he has sought to quash only the order of the Minister which is of not (sic) advisory nature but has not prayed for quashing the order of the State Government dated the 7th June, 1966. There is no doubt that the revisional functior under Section 8 (3) is vested in the State Government and it is by virtue of the rules of business that that function has been delegated to the Minister and the final statutory order is issued in the name of the Governor: but the complaint of the peti- tioner is that the quasi iudicial function of revision has not been properly exerci