Issues: 1. Competence of a delegate to quash an order made by the Government. 2. Power of the State Government to review its own order under Section 63(2) of the Act.
Detailed Analysis: 1. The judgment highlighted the issue of whether a delegate, Mr. Mankodi, had the competence to quash an order made by the Saurashtra Government on October 22, 1956. The Court emphasized that the power to review is not inherent and must be explicitly granted by law. It was noted that no provision in the Act conferred the power to review its own order to the Government. As a result, the Court concluded that since the Government lacked the power to review its order, the delegate, Mr. Mankodi, also did not possess the authority to review the order. The judgment emphasized that unless an order is set aside or declared void by a competent authority, it must be followed by subordinate tribunals. Therefore, the Court held that the order of Mr. Mankodi was liable to be set aside due to the lack of legal authority for the review.
2. The judgment also addressed the power of the State Government to entertain a revision application filed by the girasdars under Section 63(2) of the Act. While the High Court had concluded that the State Government had the authority to consider the revision application, the Supreme Court refrained from delving into this question due to the primary conclusion regarding the lack of power for the Government to review its own order. Consequently, the Court did not provide a definitive ruling on this issue, as it was deemed unnecessary given the preceding determination. The judgment highlighted the need for the pending case, which had been unresolved for about 20 years, to be expedited and resolved promptly by the Tribunal now tasked with deciding the matter.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court judgment primarily focused on the lack of legal authority for a delegate to quash an order made by the Government and refrained from delving into the question of the State Government's power to review its own order under Section 63(2) of the Act. The Court emphasized the importance of promptly resolving the longstanding case that had been pending for two decades.
9911796707
