Revisional jurisdiction cannot reopen an order already approved through a valid delegate; alternative writ challenges must still be decided on merits.

The Supreme Court of India held that the Custodian-General could not exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 27 over an order of the Custodian that had already been approved by the Assistant Custodian-General acting as delegate under Section 55 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. The statutory scheme confined revision to testing the legality or propriety of a Custodian's order and did not permit the authority, in substance, to review an order already validated through its delegate. The revision was therefore incompetent. Because the writ petitions also raised an alternative challenge to the original and consequential orders, the matter was remanded to the High Court for decision on those merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Custodian-General could exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 27 against an order of the Custodian which had already been approved by the Assistant Custodian-General acting as delegate under Section 55 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. (ii) Whether the High Court was required to examine the alternative challenge to the original and consequential orders of the Custodian after the revisional proceedings were held incompetent.

Issue (i): The statutory scheme of Section 10, Section 27 and Section 55 showed that the original transfer order derived efficacy from the approval of the Custodian-General's delegate. Once such approval had been granted, the same authority could not, in substance, sit in revision over what was already stamped with its own approval through the delegate. Revisional power under Section 27 was confined to examining the legality or propriety of an order passed by a Custodian and did not extend to a form of review over an order already approved by the delegated authority.

Conclusion: The revision before the Custodian-General was incompetent and not maintainable.

Issue (ii): Since the writ petitions before the High Court also contained an alternative challenge to the original transfer order and the consequential order, the rejection of the revision did not dispose of that alternative controversy. The proper course was to restore the writ petitions so that the High Court could decide the legality and propriety of the impugned orders on merits.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the High Court for fresh decision on the alternative challenge to the orders dated 11-11-1982 and 18-11-1982.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded to the limited extent of setting aside the High Court's view on revisional maintainability, while preserving the writ petitions for adjudication on the remaining merits issue.

Ratio Decidendi: A revisional power cannot be used to re-examine an order that has already obtained the approval of the authority itself acting through a validly delegated delegate, unless the statute expressly confers such review jurisdiction.

---