JUDGMENT

S.N. Dwivedi, J. - The Petitioner has filed the writ petition against the order of the Dy. DC dismissing his revision summarily. The revision was filed Under Section 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. It was filed against the order of the SOC dated March 18, 1964. It was filed on May 16, 1964.

2. Rule 111 of the Consolidation of Holdings Rules is framed Under Section 54 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. Before March 25, 1964 it read: "An application Under Section 48 of the Act shall be drawn up and presented by the Applicant or his pleader to the Director or to such other officer as he may appoint on his behalf. It shall be accompanied by a copy of the decree or the order in respect of which the application is made and by a copy of judgment, if any, upon which the decree or the order is founded. Copies of decrees or orders or judgments of other subordinate authorities shall not be required to be filed unless, for special reasons, filing of these documents is also considered necessary by the Director." That rule has stood for long. Presumably in the belief that that rule was still operating on May 16, 1964, the Petitioner filed along with the memorandum of revision only a copy of the judgment of the So. He did not file a copy of the order of the CO. The filing of a copy of the order of the CO was, it appears, necessary on May 16, 1964 (we express no opinion on this point), for Rule 111 on that date assumed this shape: "An application Under Section 48 of the Act shall be presented by the Applicant or his duly authorised agent to the Distt. Dy. DC within 30 days of the order against which the application is directed. It shall be accompanied by a copy of the judgment and order in respect of which the application is preferred. Copies of judgments and orders, if any, of other subordinate authorities in respect of the dispute shall also be filed with the application." Acting under this provision, the Dy. Director dismissed the revision of the Petitioner summarily on the ground that he had failed to file a copy of the order of the CO.

3. The petition came up for hearing before a learned single Judge. It was urged before him that the last part of the amended rule is directory and not mandatory. But the argument ran counter to a decision of an another learned single Judge in Smt. Shanti v. Brij Lal (CMW No. 1506 of 1968 dated May 16, 1969). Accordingly he referred the case to a larger Bench. Hence the case before us.

4. For reasons to be stated presently, we are of opinion that it is not necessary to express any opinion on the question whether the last part of the amended Rule 111 is mandatory or directory. It is admitted by counsel for the parties before us that the record of the inferior authorities had been called for by the Dy. Director. It is further admitted that the record was before him and that he dismissed the revision in limine, as stated earlier after hearing the argument of counsel for the parties. In these circumstances we are of opinion that the Dy. Director should not have dismissed the revision in limine.

Section 48(1) provides that the Director of Consolidation may call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings taken by any subordinate authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceedings or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order passed by such authority in the case or proceedings and may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, make such order in the case or proceedings as he thinks fit. Section 48 does not confer any right on a party to file an application in revision: it confers a power on the specified authority for the sake of keeping the inferior authorities within bounds. For that purpose he may call for the record of an inferior authority and examine it and pass an appropriate order. Having regard to the object underlying Section 48 it appears to us that once the record has been called for by t