IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2136 of 2010. Date of decision: 14.5.2010 Rameshwar Dass ….. Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. and others …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the Petitioner : Mr. Dinesh Bhanot, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K.Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K.Verma, Dy. Advocate General. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) CMP No. 3217 of 2010. Allowed. CWP No. 2136 of 2010 & CMP No. 3216 of 2010. The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure P-6 order passed by the third respondent. As per the said order, the Divisional Commissioner has directed to supply the copies to the aggrieved parties for enabling them to pursue their revision effectively. According to the petitioner, the Divisional Commissioner could not have passed such an order otherwise than while exercising the revisional powers. On principle and on law we have no quarrel since the revisional powers can only be exercised in a revision petition. But we find that even the affected party is not before us -2- who is actually benefited assuming that Annexure P-6 is illegal or irregular or wrong. This order could have been sought to be set at naught only if the person benefited by the said order is made a party. That is not done. 2. Be that as it may. We do not find that Annexure P-6 would have any other consequence or any effect on the legal rights of the petitioner, since it is for the parties to agitate their grievance before the Divisional Commissioner when the revision is considered on merits. Therefore, we dispose of this writ petition making it clear that the Divisional Commissioner shall ignore Annexure P-6 while considering the revision petition, if duly filed by the parties. Copy dasti. (Kurian Joseph), C.J. May 14, 2010 (Kuldip Singh), J. (Hem)