( 1 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the Special Civil application. The petitioner, President of Shree karmchari Co-operative Housing Society limited, Gandhinagar, filed this petition before this Court and prayer has been made therein for quashing of the orders annexures "a" and "b", under which the authorities have declined to grant permission for raising construction of the houses on the land in dispute. This permission was necessary in accordance with the provisions of the Gujarat New Capital (Periphery) control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, l960 ).

( 2 ) THE society has claimed itself to be the owner and in occupation of the land comprised in Survey Nos. 56, 57, 58/1, 58/ 2, 64/1, 79 and 88. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid land is covered in the control area declared under the provisions of the act 1960. With a view to obtain "no objection Certificate" (NOC) for construction of residential houses on cooperative basis on the land aforesaid, the society filed an application in the prescribed Form A under Rule 5 of the Rules framed under the aforesaid Act before respondent No. 1. This application is purported to be filed under Sub-Section (1) of Section 6 of the act 1960. This application came to be dismissed by respondent No. 1 under the aforesaid Act under the communication dated 8th August 1983. Against the aforesaid order of respondent No. 1, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority also dismissed the appeal under its order dated 20th February 1984. Hence this Special civil Application.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri B. R. Gupta contended that the respondent No. 1 was not authority competent to pass any order on the application of the petitioner and as such, its order dated 8th August 1983 is bad in law. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the power which has been given to the respondent No. 1 to exercise the powers of collector under the aforesaid Act has been taken away on 7th July 1983 and it has been given to the Collector. It has next been contended that the competent authority, i. e. , the respondent No. 2 herein has not passed order on the application of the petitioner within stipulated period as prescribed under Sub-Sec. 6 of Section 6 and as such the noc for construction shall be deemed to have been given subject to restrictions indicated in the plans under Section 4.

( 4 ) I have given my thoughtful considerations to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The appellate authority has considered the first submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and has declined to interfere in the order made by respondent No. 1 on this technical ground. The appellate authority has held that on 8th August 1983, the respondent No. 1 was not competent authority to decide application of the petitioner filed by it under Section 6 of the Act 1960, but the appellate authority has proceeded to decide the matter on merits and it has reached to the conclusion that the NOC prayed for by the petitioner for construction by raising houses on the land in dispute cannot be granted under the provisions of the Act 1960. This course which has been adopted by the appellate authority cannot be said to be arbitrary or perverse. It is a settled law that the appellate authority has powers coextensive with the powers of the original authority and in case the party concerned is able to make out a case for grant of relief which could have been granted by the lower authority or the original authority, it has all the powers to pass necessary orders. It is true that the appellate authority should have adopted other mode of remanding the matter to the Collector, the respondent No. 2 herein, but the course which has been adopted in the present case was also legally permissible and as such, on this ground alone the order of the appellate authority does not deserv