Radhakrishnan, Ag. C.J.

Learned single judge of this court vacated Ext. P10 order passed by the Government in exercise of its revisional powers conferred under clause 71 of the Kerala Rationing Order on the ground that the same was passed by an officer inferior to the officer who has passed the appellate order.

2. The question that is posed for consideration before us is whether the petitioner, an unemployed girl, is entitled to be appointed as authorised wholesale distributor of rationed articles in Kozhikode taluk area. District Collector held in favour of the petitioner and the same was taken in appeal before the Commissioner, appellate authority. Appeal was dismissed. Mohammed Ali filed a revision before the Government and the orders of the District Collector and the Civil Supplies Commissioner were reversed and the Government granted wholesale dealership to 7th respondent, Mohammed Haji. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner has approached this court by filing W.P.C. No 20262 of 2006. Learned single judge did not go to the merits of the case, but held that the Government have committed an error in entrusting the revision to a lower level officer compared to that of the Commissioner of Civil Supplies. Learned single judge noticed that the Commissioner of Civil Supplies is a senior level officer who had decided the appeal and the revision petition should have been disposed of either by the Chief Secretary or by the Minister concerned and not by an officer inferior to that of the Commissioner of Civil Supplies. Learned single judge opined as follows:

"It is certainly improper if not illegal to have a subordinate authority to sit in appeal over the order of the head of the Department. The arrangement made by the minister is not a healthy practice. I therefore vacate the Ext.P10 order of the Deputy Secretary for the reason that he has no authority to vacate the order issued by the superior officer. ........................ The order issued in revision by the Deputy Secretary is in a statutory revision to Government, and decisions in Government are always based on the hierarchy of the officers in the Government. In another case this court called for a report from the Chief Secretary justifying similar anomalous situation which in this case is found to be attributable to the minister's order.

In the circumstances, writ petition is disposed of by vacating Ext. P10 order of the Deputy Secretary with a direction to the Civil Supplies Department to place the revision file before the Chief Secretary for either referring the revision petition tobe decided by a Secretary to Government senior to the Civil Supplies Commissioner whose order is under challenge and if no such officer is available the Chief Secretary himself will decide the revision."

Learned single judge, in our view, has not properly appreciated the legal validity of the revisional order. Counsel for the appellants submitted that since similar matter is likely to arise in future and unless the legal position is made clear, the judgment impugned would stand in the way of the Government while exercising the revisional powers. W.A. No 596 of 2007 was however filed by the writ petitioner contending that the learned single judge was not justified in not examining the matter on merits. Senior Counsel Shri V.N. Achutha Kurup submitted that the Government was not justified in upsetting the order of the District Collector and the Commissioner.

3. Shri Mohan C. Menon, counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A. No 442 of 2007 explained the special features of the revisional order passed by the Government. Reference was made to the heading of the order and emblem of the Government of Kerala and the numbering as G.O. (Rt) 270/06. Further it was pointed out that at the terminal portion it is shown that it has been issued by the order of the Governor. Counsel submitted that the State Government means the Governor and the executive power vested in him is exercised by him directly or in