The judgment established the distinction between executive and judicial powers and emphasized the authority's discretion to reconsider matters based on objective considerations.

JUDGMENT

Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned Advocate General for the State.

2. One M/s V.S. Dempo & Company Pvt. Ltd., Panaji, Goa sought permission under Section 49(3) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 from the Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa to purchase pieces of land contained in Mauza Dimboli, Thana No.86, Khata No.221 and 94, Plot Nos. 1138, 1100, 1001, 1110, 1115 and 471 having different areas totaling 2.65 acres. That consent was accorded vide order dated 20th March, 2007 in T.A. Misc. Case No.09/2006-07 by the respondent no.2 with certain conditions one of it being that petitioner should establish the proposed industry within a period of five years failing which the consent to transfer would in itself stand annulled and the lands in question would have to be returned back to the land owners/vendors. Petitioner moved an application on 21st March 2013 before the Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa for extension of time citing various reasons inter-alia in paragraph-5 and 6 of the application which are as follows :-

"5. That the company could not commence construction of plant on the following amongst the other grounds :-

(a) That the purchase lands are not in contiguous which are in scattered way.

(b) That there are also some governments lands in the project areas which are also required for installing plant. The company has prayed for settlement of the same. The file is pending before the Circle Officer, Manoharpur.

(c ) That several applications filed before this learned court seeking permission under section 49 of the C.N.T. Act but the same are also still pending.

(d) That due to allotment of insufficient land the applicant in spite of best efforts could not set up the plant due to shortage of the land.

(e) That negotiation is going on with different raiyat of the concerning land for rest area.

6. That applicant will be highly prejudiced and put to irreparable loss who invested huge money if the period of setting up plant is not extended."

3. Petitioner also enclosed the details of the Misc. Case and orders passed granting permission for transfer of several such pieces of land adjoining the instant piece of land to set up the industry.

4. It is pertinent to point out that the present petitioner is the successor of the original applicant M/s V.S. Dempo & Company Pvt. Ltd. by purchase of shares. The Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa considered the application of the petitioner in Misc. Case No.72/2012-13 along with Misc. Case No.20/2013-14 and rejected the same by the impugned order dated 28th April, 2015 (Annexure-7). After taking note of the grounds urged, it observed that the original conditions of five years contained in order dated 20th March 2007 (Annexure-2) remained unquestioned. After having sat on the order for almost five years petitioner is seeking extension / modification or correction in the previous order and that too in 37 such cases. The respondent no.2 was of the opinion that being a Court, it cannot revise its own order except for correcting clerical errors. Making any changes in the previous order in any conditions or part of which would amount to revision of the previous order which is beyond the jurisdiction of the concerned court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the understanding of the respondent no.2 is flawed. It is not exercising the judicial power under Section 49 (3) & (4) of the CNT Act. Reliance is placed on the judgment rendered by the Patna High Court in the case of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1999(3) PLJR 15 . Relying upon the same judgment paragraph-16 thereof it is urged that the order granting permission is an executive order. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that under Section 24 of the Bihar and Orissa General Clauses Act, 1917 the power to issue such an order includes a power exercisable in like manner and subject to the like sanction and c