Sapru, J. - (1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari & send for the appeal which has been disposed of by the Board of Revenue to its own file.
(2.) The grievance of the applicant is that the appeal which was filed against him before the Board of Revenue was heard by one of the Members. The other Member later signed the order of the Member who heard the appeal & assented to the order passed by him. It is urged that this procedure was highly irregular & opposed to the principles of natural justice.
(3.) There is, in our opinion, no force in this argument because, apart from the fact that the rules of the Board authorise a single Member to act in the name of the Board, under serial No. 5 of List 2, U. P. Tenancy Act, two members of the Board are not required to sit together in the exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under the Act. Rule 170 of the Revenue Court Manual published by the Board of Revenue, U. P. runs as follows: "When the Board has distributed its appellate business among the Members, the order of a single Member is the order of the Board, but no decree or order coming under the consideration of the Board in appeal shall be modified or reversed without the concurrent judgment of two members of the Board." Our interpretation of this Rule is that it is not necessary for both the members to be present at the time of argument, but the order or decree of one Member has, however, to be concurred in by the other member. This Rule is not in conflict with the Act, because, as we see it, Serial No. 5 of List 2 of the second Schedule attached to the U. P. Tenancy Act, provides that nothing in this section shall require two Members of the Board to sit together in the exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under this Act. In other words, this provision of the Act, specially empowers the procedure of the character adopted by the Board of Revenue.;