- (1.) AN application was filed by Balchand applicant for setting up a flour mill in his house on 26-12-63. After a notice inviting objection was issued on 17-6-64 permission was granted for setting up a 5 HP engine on 7-12-64 (sic 5-1-65 ). Following this the Electricity Board was also notified on 11-5-65 Necessary sanction was obtained for the release of the energy from the Electricity Board in due course.
(2.) HOWEVER, Brij Mohan, a tenant of the applicant made an application for review of the order on 18 8-66 on the ground that the Flour Mill would cause incon-venience to and would create unhealthy conditions for the inhabitants of the locality. A notice was allegedly issued to the applicant for 24 8-66 and finally sanction was set aside on 4-9 66 In an appeal which followed,. Balchand applicant took up two pleas. Firstly, that the Municipal Commissioner had no jurisdiction to review his own order and secondly that the order was reviewed without any notice to the applicant. In reply, the learned counsel for the Municipal Council stated that under the bye laws the licence for the flour mill was renewable every year and, therefore, the order of 5-1-65, at any rate, stood exhausted on 4-1-66. He pleaded that the Municipal Council had the authority to re-examine the question after the expiry of this period. Having heard the contesting, parties, the Collector found that a flour mill was already working in this house. He therefore, felt that the Health Officer should not have given a 'no objection certificate' without taking into consideration this fact. He also found that the order sanctioning the flour mill had not been duly notified. At the same time he found that the appellant had not been informed of the proposal to review the previous order either. Under the circumstances the Collector set aside the order of 4-9-66 and remanded the case directing the Municipal Council to re-decide the application after obtaining a report from the Health Officer as well as hearing the parties and the neighbours. The present revision petition has been filed against this order dated 22-5-67. It is firstly argued that the Rajasthan Municipalities Act is a self contained Act and that there is no provision of revision or review in this Act. As such the order of the Municipal Council had become final and could not be reviewed subsequently. In support of this contention, my attention was invited to Ramsingh vs. Madhosingh (RRD 1957 page 222 ). This was a case under the Alwar Jagir Rules, 1939. It was held in this case that these rules lay down the procedure to be followed in dealing with the matters relating to the rights and liabilities of the Jagirdars referred to therein. It was laid down in Rule 30 that if these Rules are silent on any procedural matter, the subordinate courts could refer to other rules and regulations in force in the Alwar State. It was held in this case that as no right of review was given to a party under these Rules, a court could not exercise its powers to review its own judgment either under O. 41, R. 1 or sec. 151 C. P. C. On the other hand, it was stated in reply that the order of the Municipal Council granting sanction for the flour mill was ab initio void as Brijmohan who was a tenant of the applicant was not notified of the application made by the applicants to install a flour mill. He remained unaware of the order of 7-12-64 and further he has not been made a party in the present revision petition. It is stated that the applicant has been from the very beginning adopting an attitude of hide and seek and has been trying to secure favourable orders without impleading the affected parties specially Brijmohan who is his tenant. It is also argued that the Municipal Council is not a court but is an authority and as such the aforesaid authority cited by the learned counsel for the applicant is not applicable to the Municipal Council acting under the Municipalities Act in all its rigour. It is further argued that in fact, the Collector has accepted the appeal of the applicant against the review order and has simply followed the principles of natural justice in remanding the case to the Municipal Council for re-deciding the matter after giving an opportunity to the affected parties of being heard in the matter. These arguments must prevail. As I have not been shown the bye-laws relevant to this subject, I am not able to appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel for the Municipal Council submitted in the courts below that the licence was renewable every year. However, there is sufficient force in the argument of the learned counsel for the Municipal Council that Brijmohan was not notified of the application made by the applicant for the installation of the flour mill and that the Collector has followed the dictates of natural justice in remanding the case for further enquiry. I also agree with the learned counsel for the Municipal Council that the Municipal Council is not a court but is an administrative authority and cannot be divested from reviewing its own order in case it is found necessary to do so on the discovery of new facts. In this view of the matter, I see no force in this revision petition and hereby reject the same. . ;