S.N. Dwivedi, J. - (1.) The Petitioner has filed the writ petition against the order of the Dy. DC dismissing his revision summarily. The revision was filed Under Section 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. It was filed against the order of the SOC dated March 18, 1964. It was filed on May 16, 1964.
(2.) Rule 111 of the Consolidation of Holdings Rules is framed Under Section 54 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. Before March 25, 1964 it read: "An application Under Section 48 of the Act shall be drawn up and presented by the Applicant or his pleader to the Director or to such other officer as he may appoint on his behalf. It shall be accompanied by a copy of the decree or the order in respect of which the application is made and by a copy of judgment, if any, upon which the decree or the order is founded. Copies of decrees or orders or judgments of other subordinate authorities shall not be required to be filed unless, for special reasons, filing of these documents is also considered necessary by the Director." That rule has stood for long. Presumably in the belief that that rule was still operating on May 16, 1964, the Petitioner filed along with the memorandum of revision only a copy of the judgment of the So. He did not file a copy of the order of the CO. The filing of a copy of the order of the CO was, it appears, necessary on May 16, 1964 (we express no opinion on this point), for Rule 111 on that date assumed this shape: "An application Under Section 48 of the Act shall be presented by the Applicant or his duly authorised agent to the Distt. Dy. DC within 30 days of the order against which the application is directed. It shall be accompanied by a copy of the judgment and order in respect of which the application is preferred. Copies of judgments and orders, if any, of other subordinate authorities in respect of the dispute shall also be filed with the application." Acting under this provision, the Dy. Director dismissed the revision of the Petitioner summarily on the ground that he had failed to file a copy of the order of the CO.
(3.) The petition came up for hearing before a learned single Judge. It was urged before him that the last part of the amended rule is directory and not mandatory. But the argument ran counter to a decision of an another learned single Judge in Smt. Shanti v. Brij Lal (CMW No. 1506 of 1968 dated May 16, 1969) . Accordingly he referred the case to a larger Bench. Hence the case before us.;