CMPMO 65 of 2001 5.5.2009 Present: Shri Lavneesh Kanwar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. for respondent No.1. Shri Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Director Consolidation passed under Section 54 of the Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971. The grievance made by the petitioner herein is that the Director has considered the report submitted by the Consolidation Officer without affording any opportunity to him of rebutting the correctness of the report nor was any other evidence/material taken on the record which could support/oppose the contents of the report. True, Section 54 of the Act confers revisional powers on the Director but these powers have to be exercised in accordance with law. These powers are not plenary but circumscribed by law. He has no power to refuse to a party an opportunity of hearing and presenting his case as madated by the principles of Natural Justice. The least that is expected of the Director is to hear the parties and thereafter proceeded with the matter in accordance with law. Statutory powers are to be discharged by compliance to the provisions of Natural Justice and not by in their breach. In these circumstances the order Annexure P1 in case Brij Lal Vs. Hazara Singh decided on 11th April, 2001 is quashed and set aside. The parties are directed to appear before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi who is now exercising powers under Section 54 of the Act on 29th May, 2009. Record of the proceedings be sent back to the Commissioner at Mandi. He shall proceed with the case in accordance with law after hearing the parties. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition stands disposed of. All miscellaneous applications disposed of and all interim orders are vacated. May 05, 2009 (Dev Darshan Sud) (ms) Judge