MATHUR, J. - (1.) THE respondent - Sadul Shahar Kray Vikray Sahakari Samiti, a Society registered under the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, on consideration of the entire service record of appellant working as Manager, concluded that there was a continuous fall in his work performance, as such, it was in the public interest to prematurely retire him. It was also taken into consideration that he had attained the age of 56 years and served for more than 27 years. THE Chief Executive Officer issued an office order dated 1. 4. 1988 compulsorily retiring the appellant from service under the provisions of Rule 244 (2) (1) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, hereinafter referred-to as "the Rules". THE appellant challenged the said order by way of revision petition before the Additional Registrar-II, Cooperative Societies, Rajasthan, Jaipur. THE said revision came to be allowed by the order dated 9. 5. 96 on the ground that the provisions of Section 244 (2) of the Rules were not applicable to the respondent-Society. THE service conditions of the appellant were governed by Rule 41 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules. Under the said rule for a premature retirement, approval of the Registrar is a condition precedent. THE respondent-Society challenged the said decision of the Additional Registrar-II dated 9. 5. 96 by way of a second Revision before the State Government under Section 128 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, hereinafter referred-to as "the Act of 1965". THE Secretary, Cooperative Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur found that the revision before the Additional Registrar was not competent, as the order passed by the Administrator was not that of an officer subordinate to the Registrar. Thus, he was of the view that the Additional Registrar had no jurisdiction to hear the revision application under Section 128 of the Act of 1965. Accordingly, he allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Additional Registrar.
(2.) BEFORE the learned Single Judge, it was canvassed on behalf of the appellant that the power of revision under Section 128 of the Act of 1965 stood exhausted by the Additional Registrar and, as such, the Secretary, Cooperative Department, could not thereafter exercise the power again in respect of the same order. The learned Single Judge rejected the contention having held that the Additional Registrar had exercised the delegated power of the Registrar and not of the State Government. Precisely, the finding has been recorded in para 7 of the judgment as follows: " Therefore, the misconception that has arisen in the mind of the petitioner that the State Government had divested its own revisional power to Additional Registrar is palpably wrong one. In other words, what has been delegated by the State Government is the power of the Registrar to the Additional Registrar and not the power of itself to hear the revision under section 128 of the Act of 1965. " In order to better appreciate the contentions, it would be convenient to read Section 128 of the Act of 1965, which is as follows: " 128. Power of the Government and Registrar to call for proceeding of subordinate officers and to pass orders thereon.- (1) The State Government and the Registrar may call for and examine the record of any inquiry or the proceedings of any other matter, of any officer subordinate to them, except those referred to in section 125, for the purpose of satisfying themselves as to the legality or propriety of any decision or order passed, and as to the regularity of the proceedings of such officer. If in any case, it appears to the State Government or the Registrar, that any, decision or order or proceeding so called for should be modified, annulled or reversed, the State Government or the Registrar, as the case may be, may after giving persons affected thereby an opportunity of being heard, pass such order thereon as it or he thinks just: Provided that every application to the Registrar or the Government for the exercise of the powers under this section shall be preferred within ninety days from the date on which the proceedings, decision or order to which the application relates was communicated to the applicant: Provided further that the Registrar shall not exercise the powers under this section in case in which an appeal lies to him under this Act. Explanation:- For the purpose of this sub-section the Assistant Registrar, Deputy Registrar and Joint Registrar exercising all or any of the powers of the Registrar under this Act shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Registrar. (2) Pending the hearing under sub-section (1), the Government or the Registrar may pass such interlocutory order as it or he thinks fit to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated. " The object of the revisional legislation in any Statute is to confer power on the superior Court or authority, a kind of paternal or supervisory jurisdiction in order to correct miscarriage of justice arising from misconception of law, irregularity of procedure including of proper precautions of apparent harshness of treatment. Such a power is exercised by higher forum with the great circumspection with a view to cure the miscarriage of justice. A bare reading of Section 128 of the Act of 1965 clearly reveals that under the Cooperative Societies Act, such a power is vested with the State Government as well as the Registrar. The word "and" used in between the words "state Government" and the "registrar" in the beginning of the Section, is of significance inasmuch as it clearly indicates that the revisional power is vested with two authorities viz; the State Government and the Registrar. The powers vested in both the authorities are concurrent. Another significant word used is "themselves", which provides clue to the issue involved. The word used, is in plurality and, as such, the power is vested in more than one authorities. It is not in dispute that the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, has been delegated the powers of the Registrar under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act of 1965 by the State Government vide its Notification No. F. 4 (7)Co- op/i/65 dated 8. 02. 1974. Thus, the Additional Registrar decided the revision as a delegate of the Registrar and not as delegate of the State Government. Thus, the State Government was entitled to invoke its own revisional jurisdiction by way of second revision under Section 128 of the Act of 1965. The order of the delegate of Registrar can not be treated as an order of the State Government. Mr. Manoj Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has referred-to a decision of the Apex Court in OCL India Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1), for the proposition that once the delegate has exercised the power of revision, it stands exhausted and such a power can not be exercised again by the original authority. In the said case, the power of the Commissioner under Section 23 (4) (a) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 was delegated to the Assistant Commissioner. The power of revision was exercised in respect of the order of the Sales Tax Officer by the Assistant Commissioner. In such circumstances, it was held that the Commissioner could not have thereafter exercised that power again in respect of the same assessment order. In order to better understand the ratio of the authority, it would be convenient to read Section 23 of the aforesaid Act, which has been reproduced in para 7 of the judgment: " 23. Appeals and revisions.- (1)- (3) * * * (4) (a) Subject to such rules as may be made and for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Commissioner may, upon application by a dealer or person or on his own motion, revise any order made under this Act or the Rules made thereunder by any person other than the Tribunal, appointed under sub-section (3) of Section 3 to assist him: Provided that the Commissioner shall not entertain any such application for revision if the dealer or the person filing the same having a remedy by way of appeal under sub-section (1), or sub-section (3) did not avail of such remedy or the application is not filed within the prescribed period. Explanation.-Any provision contained elsewhere in this Act which provides for determination of any specific matter shall not debar the Commissioner from determining such matter in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under this sub-section. "
(3.) A perusal of Clause (a) of sub-section (4) of Section 23 of the aforesaid Act makes it clear that the power of revision has been conferred with the single authority viz; the Commissioner and none else. But in the instant case, the power of revision has been conferred by Section 128 of the Act of 1965 with the State Government as well as the Registrar. Thus, the case cited by the learned Counsel does not advance his case. Learned counsel has referred to another decision of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa vs. Commissioner of Land Records & Settlement We have gone through the said judgment. In the said case, Section 15 of the Orissa Board of Revenue Act, 1951 conferred power of revision on the Board of Revenue alone and the power was delegated to the Commissioner. Thus, it is also not a case of vesting of revisional power in more than one courts or authorities. Therefore, this case also renders no help to the appellant. We do not find any justified reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. ;