IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6079 of 2009 SHYAM KISHORE SINGH, son of late Darbari Singh, resident of village- Gadua, P.S. Warsaliganj, District- Nawadah. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya. 3. The District Magistrate-cum- Collector, Nawadah 4. The sub-divisional Officer, Nawadah, Sadar 5. The Block Supply Officer, Warsaliganj,Nawadah. ----------- 2. 14.5.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 16.10.2008 passed by the Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya in Revision Case No. 91 of 2007, by which he has affirmed the appellate order dated 7.6.2007 and the order dated 14.8.2007 passed by the District Magistrate-cum- Collector, Nawadah in Appeal No. 162 (M) of 2007 on the basis of the orders dated 16.2.2006 and 30.12.2006 issued by the Sub-divisional Officer, Nawadah Sadar, by which the Fair Price Shop licence No. 1 of 1992 of the petitioner was suspended and subsequently cancelled. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier against the order dated 27.12.2007 passed by the Commissioner in the said revision case, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No.7954/2008 on the ground that the Commissioner has not taken into consideration the original order passed in the appeal by the Collector dated 7.6.2007 and has confined the decision to the order dated 14.8.2007, which was an order passed by the Collector in review resulting in serious prejudice to the petitioner. It is pointed out that this Court by order dated 8.7.2008 allowing the writ petition had remanded 2 the matter back for fresh consideration after setting aside the order dated 27.12.2007 holding that the order passed in revision by the Divisional Commissioner does not indicate that he had actually taken into consideration the grounds and the issues raised in the appellate order dated 7.6.2007 and the reference is only with regard to the order dated 14.8.2007. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the present order is not in accordance with the direction of this Court and the Divisional Commissioner has not taken into consideration the grounds and issues raised in the appellate order. It is further argued that the report of the Block Development Officer has not been taken into consideration by the respondent-authorities. It is also submitted that the recommendation of the Block Supply Officer is not valid in the eye of law since the search and seizure of the godown of the petitioner was neither made nor it was sealed in a proper manner. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that the revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner under Clause 29 of the Bihar Trade Articles ( Licences Unification) Order, 1984 is a very limited one confined only to the jurisdictional error and it is not expected of the Commissioner to sit in appeal over the order passed by the appellate authority, i.e., the Collector. It is also the contention of learned counsel for the State that the Divisional Commissioner in the impugned order has taken into consideration all the arguments made on behalf of the petitioner before him and thereafter he has dismissed the revision application finding that there is no procedural error in the order 3 of the Collector and that he has given adequate opportunity to the petitioner to place his case and further in his order dated 7.6.2007 he has discussed in detail the entire matters. On a consideration of the rival submissions, this Court does not find any force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. In the earlier writ application, this Court by order dated 8.7.2008 had merely noted the fact that the reference was made in the revisional order dated 27.12.2007 of the Divisional Commissioner only to the order dated 14.8.2007 which was the order passed in review and not the appellate order dated 7.6.2007, since there was nothing in the said order to indicate that he had actually taken into consideration the grounds and issues raised in the appellate order dated 7.6.2007. This Court is also inclined to accept the submission of learned counsel for the State that the powers of the Commissioner under Clause 29 of the 1984 Order with respect to revision is a limited one on the jurisdictional grounds indicated therein. Clause 29 of the 1984 Order is quoted hereinbelow: “29. Revision- The Commissioner, suo-moto or on an application, may call for the record of any case decided by the Collector or the Licensing Authority under the provisions of this order and if he is satisfied that the Collector or the Licensing Authority- (a) has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him or it; or (b) has exercised the jurisdiction vested in him or it with material irregularity; or (c) has improperly failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him or he may pass such order as he thinks fit.” It is, thus, evident that the Divisional Commissioner can interfere with the appellate order of the Collector if he is satisfied either that the Collector or the Licensing Authority has exercised a jurisdiction 4 not vested in him or has exercised his jurisdiction vested in him with material irregularity or improperly failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him, and thereafter he may pass such order as he thinks fit. From the impugned order, it is evident that all the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner before the revisional authority have been noted therein and thereafter he has also noted his conclusion that the petitioner was given ample opportunity by the licensing authority, the Sub-divisional Officer as also the appellate authority, the District Magistrate, Nawadah. He has also found that the District Magistrate, Nawadah in his order dated 7.6.2007 has discussed the issues in detail and for the said reasons he came to the conclusion that there was no procedural error in the order dated 7.6.2007 and confirmed the order in question. It is, thus, evident that the revisional authority has taken into consideration the previous appellate order dated 7.6.2007 while passing the present order. As a revisional authority, it is not expected that he will re-hear the matter as though hearing the appeal, since he has to exercise his jurisdiction only on the grounds as laid down in Clause 29 of the 1984 Order. In the light of the aforesaid discussions, there is no merit in the writ petition and it is, accordingly, dismissed. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.)