BRIJ MOHAN LALL, J.:- One of the shops on the ground floor of house No.40/-1, Parade, Kanpur, fell vacant in the first week of June 1951. Several persons including Mahabir Prasad (petitioner) and Bansidhar (opposite party No.3) were desirous of taking the shop on rent. They applied for allotment to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer who, according to the common case of the parties, is a person authorised by the District Magistrate to perform his functions under the Rent Control and Eviction Act (3 of 1947), and is, therefore, a "District Magistrate" within the meaning of the term as defined in S.2 (d) of the Act.

The Rent Control arid Eviction Officer allotted the shop in question to the petitioner on 14-6-51. Bansidhar, however, managed to occupy the shop. This occupation was obviously unauthorised.

2. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer took steps under S.7A of the Act and passed an order for Bansidhars eviction. The latter went up in revision to the Commissioner, Allahabad cum-Jhansi division but the latter by his order dated 4-10-1952 dismissed the said revision.

3. Having failed before the executive authorities, Bansidhar turned to civil Courts and instituted a suit against the petitioner for an injunction restraining him from taking possession. He obtained a temporary injunction to that effect, but the suit was ultimately dismissed and the injunction was discharged. Bansidhar preferred an appeal and sought an injunction from the District Judge who also refused it. Thereafter he came to this Court and obtained an interim injunction which also was discharged on 28-4-53.

4. After all attempts on Bansidhars part to seek protection of his unauthorised occupation of the disputed premises from civil Courts had failed the petitioner moved the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to enforce the order which he had passed for Bansidhars eviction. On 11-5-53 the said officer directed the Station Officer, Kotwali to dispossess Bansidhar and to deliver possession to the petitioner. The very next day, i.e., on 12-5-53 Bansidhar approached the District Magistrate and prayed that fresh enquiry might be held and further proceedings for his eviction might be stayed.

The petitioner objected, but in spite of his objections the District Magistrate passed an order on 18-9-53 directing the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to cancel the allotment made by him in petitioners favour and to allot the shop to Bansidhar. Acting on this command the Rent Control and Eviction Officer passed an order on 26-9-53 allotting the shop to Bansidhar "as demanded by the District Magistrate".

5. The petitioner has come up to this Court and he prays that in exercise of our power under Art.226 of the Constitution we may issue a writ of certiorari quashing the District Magistrates order dated 18-9-53 and the Rent Control and Eviction Officers order dated 26-9-53 and may further issue a writ of mandamus directing the said officers to enforce the Rent Control and Eviction Officers order dated 11-5-53.

6. The power of an authority to modify its own order or the order of a co-ordinate or subordinate authority varies according to the nature of the order. Ordinarily finality attaches to a judicial or a quasi-judicial order. Such an order when passed is supposed to dispose of the dispute once for all. If the authority passing the order wishes to modify or rescind the said order, it has to act within the provisions of law conferring power of review. Similarly, if it is desired to modify or cancel judicial or quasi-judicial order passed by a subordinate authority or an authority exercising concurrent jurisdiction, the power must be expressly conferred by some provisions of law.

7. Greater latitude is permissible in the case of an administrative or executive order. Such an order may be modified or revoked by the authority passing it under S.21, U.P. General Clauses Act (1 of 1904). This section provides that "Where, by any United Provinces Act, a power to issue notificatio