IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2009 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 30292 of 2007(F) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ T.A.JOSE & COMPANY AWD NO. III AND IV, MUNDOOR AND KUTTANELLOOR,TRICHUR REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER. BY ADVS. MR.V.V.ASOKAN, MR.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. COMMISSIONER, CIVIL SUPPLIES, COMMISSIONERATE OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TRICHUR. 4. DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER,TRICHUR. 5. TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, TRICHUR. 6. THRISSUR TALUK RATION DEALERS CO-OP SOCIEITY LTD NO.1042,XXVI/852, REGAL BUILDING, PALAKKAL ANGADI, TRISSUR. Kss ..2/- ...2..... WPC.NO.30292/2007 F *ADDL.R7 & R8 ARE IMPLEADED: R7. KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, GANDHI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM. (*ADDL.R7 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 24/10/07 IN I.A.NO.14213/07) R8. C.R.DEVASSY, ARD NO.331, THOLUR, RESIDING IN CHITTILAPPILLY HOUSE, THOLUR, TRICHUR. (*ADDL.R8 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 13/08/08 IN I.A.NO.7558/08) R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER R1 TO R5 BY ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL MR.RENJITH THAMPAN R6 BY MR.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE, BY ADV.MR.T.GOPALAKRISHNAN. ADDL.R7 BY ADV.SMT.MOLLY JACOB,SC,SUPPLYCO ADDL.R8 BY ADVS.MR.K.SRIKUMAR, MR.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/02/2009, THE COURT ON 3/03/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.30292/2007 F APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 2/05/1996. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.A.NO.1308/2004 DTD. 15/09/2004. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 13/10/2005. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 19/04/2006. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.11625 OF 2006 DTD. 21/04/2006. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.11625 OF 2006 DTD. 9/10/2006. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE REVISION FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER (WITH REFERENCE TO AWD NO.III) DTD. 13/10/2006. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE REVISION FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER (WITH REFERENCE TO AWD NO.IV) DTD. 13/10/2006. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.27315/2006 DTD.1/2/2007. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE REQUEST FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR SUPPLY OF COPIES OF THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 18/09/2007. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE NOTICE FOR HEARING ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 26/09/2007. EXT.P13: COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 3/10/2007. Kss ..2/- .2... WPC.NO.30292/2007 F EXT.P14: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 22/10/2007. EXT.P15: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT BY THE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION TO THE GOVERNMENT DTD. 20/08/01. EXT.P16: COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER OF THE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER, CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DTD. 13/11/2007. EXT.P17: COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER OF THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, TRICHUR DTD. 13/11/2007. EXT.P18: COPY OF THE LETTER F1 4932/04 OF THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, TRICHUR TO THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DTD. 9/12/2004. EXT.P19: COPY OF THE LETTER – F1 4932/04 OF THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, TRICHUR TO THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DTD. 24/01/2005. EXT.P20: COPY OF THE LETTER – CS – A4 – 1 2593/05 OF THE DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES TO THE SECRETARY, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DTD. 8/07/2005. EXT.P21: COPY OF THE LETTER – F1 4932/04 OF THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, TRICHUR TO THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DTD. 5/05/2005. EXT.P22: COPY OF THE NOTE FILE NO.4253/B1/04 FCS & CAD OF THE SECRETARY, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES CONTAINING THE APPROVAL OF THE MINISTER, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS & ANNEXURES: EXT.R4(A): COPY OF THE REVISION REFERRED TO AS PAPER 2 IN EXT.P4. EXT.R4(B): COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD...... FROM.... REFERRED TO AS PAPER 3 IN EXT.P4. EXT.R4(A): COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B1-1846/2007/3 DTD. 24/09/2007. Kss ...3/- ....3..... WPC.NO.30292/2007 F EXT.R4(B): COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.F3-4230/2006 DTD.30/09/2006. EXT.R4(C): COPY OF THE MAHAZAR PREPARED IN RESPECT TO AWDS (3). EXT.R4(D): COPY OF THE MAHAZAR PREPARED IN RESPECT TO AWDS (4). ANNEXURE -1: COPY OF THE ORDER IN WPC.14187/04. ANNEXURE -2: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 18/05/2004 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. ANNEXURE -3: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN W.A.NO.1308/04 PASSED ON 15/09/2004. ANNEXURE -4: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER DTD. 5/10/2005. ANNEXURE 5&5(A): COPY OF THE APPLICATIONS DTD. 7/10/2005 SUBMITTED BY M/S. T.A. JOSE & COMPANY. ANNEXURE -6: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT CIRCULAR DTD. 25/11/1974. ANNEXURE -7: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER DTD. 13/04/2007. ANNEXURE -8: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 13/10/2005 OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. ANNEXURE -9: COPY OF THE ENDORSEMENT AT THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER REGARDING THE MESSAGE NO.CS.A8-2895/06 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES. ANNEXURE -10&10(A):COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DTD. 6/02/2006 AND THE REMARKS GIVEN BY THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, THRISSUR. ANNEXURE -11: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 19/04/2006 OF THE CIVIL SUPPLIES COMMISSIONER. ANNEXURE -12: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.11625/06. ANNEXURE -13: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DTD.22/10/2007. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).Nos.30292 OF 2007 --------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2009. JUDGMENT The main prayer in this writ petition is to quash Exts.P4,P7,P8 and P14 orders. 2. Facts of the case are that, Ext.P1 is an order passed by the 3rd respondent, appointing the petitioner as the Authorized Wholesale Distributor at Mundoor and Kuttanelloor in Trissur District. However, this order was not implemented and seeking its implementation, petitioner filed O.P.No.2072/97 before this court. By this time, Government policy had changed and as a result of which, the first respondent entrusted AWD-1 at Mundoor to a Co-operative Society and AWD No.2 at Kuttanelloor, to the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation. This arrangement, appears to have continued till 2004 when the Civil Supplies Corporation abandoned the distributorship WP(c).No.30292/07 2 and AWD entrusted to the Co-operative Society was suspended. 3. At this stage, the petitioner herein filed WP(c). No.14615/04, again claiming implementation of Ext.P1, appointing him as AWD at Mundoor and Kuttnelloor. In that writ petition a learned Single Judge of this court passed Annexure-A2 order dated 18.5.2004, directing that if the Government is appointing anybody other than the Civil Supplies Corporation, the same shall be done only in accordance with law after issuing notification. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed W.A. No.1308/04, in which a Division Bench of this court passed Ext.P2 order directing that the AWDs at Mundoor and Kuttanellor shall not be entrusted to anybody other than the appellant (the petitioner herein), if the shops have not already been entrusted to any other person. 4. Thereafter it would appear that the matter was discussed at various levels, as is seen from Exts.P18 to P22. Ext.P18 is the letter issued by the District Supply officer (D.S.O), to the Secretary to Government, Ext.P19 is WP(c).No.30292/07 3 the letter issued by the DSO to Deputy Secretary of the first respondent, Ext.P20 is the letter issued by the Director of Civil Supplies to Secretary to Government, Ext.P21 is yet another letter issued by the D.S.O to the Commissioner of Civil Supplies. In all these communications, reference is made to Ext.P2 order passed by the Division Bench of this court and directions were sought for the arrangement to be made in the context of Ext.P2 order. Ext.P22 is the note files of the first respondent, in which it is seen that after elaborate consideration of the matter at varous levels, the Minister for Food and Civil Supplies, vide his order dated 3.10.2005 ordered to issue directions to the District Collector, Trissur to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment in the light of Ext.P2 order. In pursuance to Ext.P22 referred to above, Annexure-A4 order was issued by the first respondent directing the District Collector, Trissur to take steps for starting the AWD at Mundoor and Kuttanelloor and to entrust its running to the petitioner in the light of Ext.P2 order. WP(c).No.30292/07 4 5. In pursuance to Annexure-A4 referred to above, petitioner states that he was called upon to submit an application for appointment as AWD and accordingly Annexure-A5 application was submitted by him to the District Collector on 7.10.2005. It is stated that finally the District Collector issued Ext.P3 order dated 13.10.2005 appointing the petitioner as AWD at Mundoor and Kuttanellor exercising his powers under Clause 51(1) of the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966. Although the date of service of Ext.P3 order is not seen disclosed in the pleadings, petitioner submits that in implementation of Ext.P3 he lifted the stock on 14.10.2005 and commenced business from that date itself. 6. While the petitioner was thus continuing as the AWD at Mundoor and Kuttanellor, it is stated that complaint dated 4.1.2006, was received from one Sri. P.B. Mohanan, Secretary, Kerala State Ration Consumers Association, Vittyla, Ernakulam and on its receipt, the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, by order dated 28.1.2006 WP(c).No.30292/07 5 called for the files regarding the appointment of the petitioner and it is so stated in Annexure-A9. Accordingly, under the cover of Annexure-A10 dated 6.2.2006 the files were forwarded to the Director of Civil Supplies. It would appear that acting upon the complaint thus received on 4.1.2006, the second respondent issued Ext.P4 dated 19.4.2006, cancelling the appointment of the petitioner exercising his powers under clause 51(11) of the Kerala Rationing Order. 7. The petitioner challenged Ext.P4 order in WP(c). No.11625/06 and by Ext.P5 order dated 21.4.2006, the oder was stayed by this Court. The writ petition was finally heard by a Division Bench of this court and the case was disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment dated 9.10.2006 relegating the petitioner to pursue the remedy of appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision before the first respondent, as provided in clause 71 of the Rationing Order, a copy of which is Ext.P7. It is stated that complaining of delay in the disposal of the revision, the petitioner filed WP(c).No.27315/06. That writ petition was WP(c).No.30292/07 6 disposed of by Ext.P9 judgment, after hearing the 6th respondent also, directing that the first respondent shall hear the petitioner and the 6th respondent herein and dispose of the revision and that in the meanwhile, allow the petitioner to continue the business. Here it should be stated that although in Ext.P6 judgment, taking note of the submission made by the 6th respondent, this court directed the petitioner to file an appeal, what the petitioner filed was a revision under clause 71 of the Rationing Order. Despite this, the 6th respondent did not question the maintainability of the revision petition while WP(c). No.27315/06 was heard and disposed of by Ext.P9 judgment. 8. In pursuance to Ext.P9 judgment, the first respondent heard the parties and disposed of the revision by Ext.P14, Government Order No.G.O(Rt) No.484/07/FCSD dated 22.10.2007. Paragraph 7 to 10 of that order being relevant, are extracted below for reference. “In order to dispose of the Revision Petition filed by T.A Jose and Company, the Secretary(F&CS WP(c).No.30292/07 7 Dept.) conducted a hearing on 3.10.2007 at 11 AM. Advocate Sri. S. Sreekumar represented for the Thrissur Taluk Ration Dealers Association and Advocate V.V. Asokan represented M/s. T.A Jose and company. 8. Arguments for Thrissur Taluk Ration Dealers Association. a. The Court Direction and Govt. Direction are only to the limit that M/s. T.A Jose and company may be entrusted only with sub-depots and they are permitted to run the depots only on temporary measures till permanent alternate arrangements are made. b. By misinterpreting the court order dated 18.5.04 in O.P.No.14615/04 and the Govt. direction, the collector appointed M/s. T.A. Jose ad Company as permanent authorized wholesale dealer without due notification and also in a hasty manner. Hence the Commissioner of Civil Supplies rightly cancelled the order of the District Collector and it is in order. The counsel has requested to dismiss the revision petition, vacate the stay order of Civil Supplies Commissioner and entrust the AWD 3 & 4 to Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation. 9. Argument for T.A Jose and Company. a. The Commissioner of Civil Supplies has cancelled the AWD license without notice or afford an opportunity of being heard. b. The appeal petitioner Sri. V.B. Mohan is a fictitious person since he has not appeared before Civil Supplies Commissioner or the Secretary for hearing. c. A person from Ernakulam District has no locus standi to challenge the order as the subject AWD WP(c).No.30292/07 8 Depots are in Thrissur Distrct. d. The Commissioner of Civil Supplies has no power to invoke suo motu revisional jurisdiction after a period of six months of the original order. e. Against the High Court order in O.P filed by M/s. T.A Jose & Company No.14615/04, they filed a writ application in which the court has given an interim direction to entrust the sub depots at Mundoor and Kuttanellor to M/s.T.A. Jose and Company. He had requested to set aside the order of the Commissioner of Civil Supplies and allow the revision petition. 10. The arguments put forward by the counsel and the information gathered from the records has examined in detail. The findings of Commissioner of Civil Supplies is seen correct since the appointment of M/s. T.A Jose and Company as AWD 3 and 4 in Thrissur was in a haste, misinterpreting both the direction of Govt. and the Hon'ble High Court. The procedure followed in this regard was also not correct. Moreover, Govt. is examining the feasibility of entrusting whole sale distribution of ration articles through the Kerala State Civil supplies Corporation with a view to avoid diversion of ration articles in open market. Hence it is better to entrust the AWD 3 and 4 of Thrissur District to Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation. In these circumstances, the request contained in the revision petition filed by M/s. T.A. Jose and Company is liable to be rejected and hereby dong so by upholding the decision of the Commissioner of Civil Supplies in his proceedings NO.CS A8.895/06 dated 19.4.2006. The AWD 3 & 4 Thrissur District is hereby WP(c).No.30292/07 9 ordered to entrust with Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation. The Revision petition filed by M/s. T.A Jose and Company is thus disposed of. This order is issued under Rule 71 of the Kerala Rationing Order 1966 and in compliance with the directions contained in the judgment read 4th,7th and 8th paper read above.” By this order, the revision was rejected and it is in these circumstances the writ petition is filed with the prayers as mentioned above. 9. Sr. V.V. Asokan, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that, Ext.P4 order cancelling the petitioner's appointment as AWD was issued by the 2nd respondent, without issuing notice, giving him an opportunity to make his representation and also without an opportunity of hearing. It was also contended that Ext.P4 order has been passed beyond the time limit prescribed in clause 5(11) of the Rationing Order. It was also contended that, although the 2nd respondent has power to condone the delay in entertaining the complaint, nothing has been stated in Ext.P4 to show whether delay has been condoned and that in any case, delay could not have been condoned without notice to the petitioner. WP(c).No.30292/07 10 10. It was also argued that in terms of the scheme of the Kerala Rationing Order only a person aggrieved could have made a complaint and that in this case the complaint dated 4.1.2006, on the basis of which Ext.P4 order was passed has been filed by a person from Vytilla, who could not have had any grievance about petitioner's appointment and therefore no action whatsoever could have been taken by the authorities. Lastly, it was argued that Ext.P14 order passed by the first respondent exercising the power of revision under clause 71 of the Rationing Order is also illegal for the reason that the contentions raised by the petitioner were not considered. 11. On behalf of respondents 1 to 5, the Additional Advocate General Sri. Renjith Thampan appeared. Although he did not dispute the factual correctness of the case of the petitioner that Ext.P4 order was passed without giving him any notice or hearing, he contended that Ext.P3 order having been passed in violation of the provisions contained in the Kerala Rationing Order and also Annexure-A6 Government Order, is a void one and WP(c).No.30292/07 11 hence, no right whatsoever can be claimed on the basis of the said order. It is stated that if Ext.P3 is a void order, petitioner cannot claim that he should have been issued notice or given hearing before cancelling such an order. 12. In so far as the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P4 order has been passed beyond the time limit prescribed in Clause 51(11) of the Rationing Order, learned Addl. Advocate General contended that the time limit prescribed in clause 51(11) of the Rationing Order is only for initiating the proceedings and not for passing the final order. According to him, proceedings have been initiated on 4.1.2006 or at least on 28.1.2006, when the records were called for and therefore the case of the petitioner that the order was passed beyond the time prescribed is erroneous. He also referred to Section 85A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and the judgments of this court in Subramania Mudaliar V. Taluk Land Board (1986 KLT 338), Glen Leve Estate (P) Ltd. V. State of Kerala (1999(3) KLT 239 and Balan V. State of Kerala (2006(4) KLT 229) to contend that the time WP(c).No.30292/07 12 limit is only for initiating proceedings. 13. Answering the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that delay has not been condoned, it was argued that once proceedings have been initiated that necessarily means that the delay has been condoned. Finally he argued that for technical reasons if Ext.P4 order is set aside, the result will be the resurrection of Ext.P3, an illegal order, and that in such a case, this court should not set aside the impugned order. He placed reliance on the judgment of this court in Shenoy V. Central Bank of India (1983 KLT 381) and that of the Apex Court in M.C. Metha V. Union of India & Ors. 1999(6) SCC 237 and Rajkumar Soni V. State of U.P and another.(2007(10) SCC 635). 14. Sri. K. Ramakumar, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the 6th respondent contended that Ext.P4 order has become final and therefore the writ petition is not maintainable. According to him, Ext.P3 being a void order no right flows from Ext.P3 and therefore the petitioner has no legal right to be issued notice or to be WP(c).No.30292/07 13 heard. He also contended that for the above reason itself, the petitioner has no right to invoke Art.226 of the Constitution and seek a discretionary relief from this court. Counsel also argued that petitioner being a back door entrant, is liable to go out through the back door itself. 15. Elaborating his contention that Ext.P4 has become final and therefore the writ petition is not maintainable, it was contended that Ext.P4 is an appealable order in terms of clause 51(10) of the Rationing Order and that in Ext.P6 judgment, the petitioner was relegated to pursue the appellate remedy. However, the petitioner did not file an appeal and therefore Ext.P4 has become final. According to him, when clause 51(10) of the Rationing Order provides a right of appeal, it being a specific remedy provided under the Statute, the residuary remedy of revision could not have been invoked. 16. In so far as his contention that Ext.P3 being a void order and that no right flows from the said order and that as a result the petitioner has no legal right to be heard, counsel placed reliance on R. Vishwanatha Pillai V. WP(c).No.30292/07 14 State of Kerala and Ors. (2004(2)SCC 105), State of U.P & Ors. V. Desh Raj (2007(1)SCC 257), M.P. State Co. Op. Bank Ltd. V. Nanuram Yadav & Ors. (2007(8)SCC 264), Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. V. K. Brahmanandam & Ors.(2008(5) SCC 241) and Pramod Kumar V. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Ors.(2008(7)SCC 153. He also reiterated the contention that the petitioner's appointment being illegal they cannot seek the assistance of this court to remain in business. 17. On behalf of the 7th respondent the Standing Counsel Mrs. Molly Jacob entered appearance. According to her, Ext.P3 appointment was only a temporary arrangement and therefore the Government is always competent to entrust the AWD to anybody it deems appropriate. She also canvassed for the position that after Ext.P3, petitioner has not been issued an order of appointment as contemplated in the Rationing Order. It was therefore argued that in the absence of such a valid and proper order of appointment, the petitioner cannot WP(c).No.30292/07 15 claim any legal right. 18. Among the various contentions raised by the respective parties, I shall first deal with the contention of the petitioner that Ext.P4 order was passed without notice to make representation and hearing and therefore is illegal. I choose to deal with this contention for the reason that in case if I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order is illegal for this reason, then the matter should necessarily be reconsidered by the 2nd respondent, in which case, it is for the 2nd respondent to decide on the other contentions of the respective parties. 19. As already noticed, Ext.P4 itself shows that the order was passed by the 2nd respondent exercising his powers under Clause 51(11) of the Rationing Order. Clause 51(11) being relevant is extracted below for reference. The Commissioner may either suo motu or on application, call for and examine the records of any order passed by a subordinate authority under the provisions of this clause, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or to the propriety of such order and may- WP(c).No.30292/07 16 (a) confirm, modify or set aside the order. (b) impose any penalty or set aside, reduce confirm or enhance the penalty imposed by the order: (c) remit the case to the authority which made the order or any other authority directing such further action or enquiry as the commissioner considers proper in the circumstances of the case; or (d) pass such other order as the commissioner may deem fit; (Provided that the power under this sub- clause shall not be exercised:- (I) Suo motu, after the expiry of six months from the date of service of such order. (ii) On application, if the application has been filed after the expiry of sixty days from the date of service of such order;) (Provided further that the commissioner may entertain application under this sub- clause after expiry of the said period, if he is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not submitting the application in time). Provided further that no order to the disadvantage of a person shall be passed under this sub-clause unless the person concerned is given an opportunity of making any representation which he may wish to make against such order(and also an opportunity of hearing him in person.)” 20. A reading of this provision makes it clear that either suo motu or on application, the 2nd respondent has power to call for any order passed by any subordinate WP(c).No.30292/07 17 authority under clause 51, examine and satisfy himself about the legality or propriety of such order. The nature of orders to be passed by the 2nd respondent are those provided in clause (a) to (d) of Clause 51(11). First proviso states that the power shall not be exercised suo motu after the expiry of 6 months from the date of service of such order and that on application, the 2nd respondent is forbidden from exercising the power if the application has been filed after the expiry of 60 days of the date of service of such order. The 2nd proviso confers power on the 2nd respondent to entertain an application after the expiry of the period specified, if he is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient