SANJIV KHANNA, J.

1. Ritu Sahu Jain, the petitioner in this writ petition, impugns the order dated 12th April, 2005 passed by the Financial Commissioner holding that she was disqualified from being a member of the Nav Sansad Vihar Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited (Cooperative Society, for short) under Rule 25 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973 (Rules, for short) as she was the owner of 1000 square metres of land in the extended village abadi in the village Kapashera, New Delhi.

2. The contentions raised by the petitioner are as under:-

(i) Rule 25 being a disabling provision should be strictly interpreted. Rule 25(1)(C)(i) of the Rules was not violated as the petitioner did not own any residential house or plot of land for construction of a residential house.

(ii) The Financial Commissioner erroneously reversed the finding of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies that 1000 square metres of land in the extended abadi area of village Kapashera was non-residential land. The Financial Commissioner ignored and did not appreciate the fact that a godown had been constructed on the land and was rented out for commercial purposes in the year 1995-96 to M/s Emery Worldwide, Singapore.

(iii) The Financial Commissioner, in reversing the factual findings of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, had exceeded the revisional power conferred under Section 80 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 (Act, for short). The distinction between the revisional and appellate power is striking but has been overlooked.

(iv) The Lieutenant Governor and not the Financial Commissioner could have exercised revisional power under Section 80 of the Act. The Lieutenant Governor can suo motu, or on an application by a party, call for and examine the records of the proceedings before the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. Ergo, the order of the Financial Commissioner under Section 80 of the Act is void ab initio for lack of authority.

3. The present writ petition was allowed by the judgment dated 8th February, 2011, recording that the Financial Commissioner had failed to discuss, much less decide, the foremost contention relating to his authority. The revisional power under Section 80 of the Act which stands vested in the Lieutenant Governor of the Union Territory of Delhi was erroneously exercised by the Financial Commissioner. The power and jurisdiction of the Financial Commissioner as an appellate authority was restricted to Section 76 of the Act. Therefore, the revision petition preferred before the Financial Commissioner by Ashok Sardana, the respondent No. 1 herein, was not maintainable.

4. This order dated 8th February, 2011, was, however, reviewed and recalled vide order dated 27th February, 2015 after referring to Section 3 (1A) of the Delhi (Delegation of Powers) (Amendment) Bill, 1994, as per which the power under Section 80 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 stands delegated to the Financial Commissioner. The recall order records that the issue raised in the review petition was germane and yet was not addressed at the time of disposal of the writ petition. The review petition, therefore, was allowed and the writ petition was directed to be listed before the roster bench.

5. Section 3 of the Delhi (Delegation of Powers) Act, 1964 states that any power, authority or jurisdiction or any duty which the Administrator may exercise or discharge by or under the provision of any enactment mentioned in column 1 of the Schedule, may also be exercised or discharged by (a) any officer or authority mentioned in relation thereto in Column 2 of the Schedule and (b) any other officer or authority as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government by notification in the official gazette. Section 3 of the 1964 Act was amended by the Delhi (Delegation of Powers) (Amendment) Act, 1994 and sub-section (1A) was inserted. The Sche