Delegation of revisional power permits authorisation of a Deputy Director, validating the revision order under the Act.

The revisional power under section 32 of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Act, 1964 was first vested in the Board, but once delegated to the Director under section 33 it became a function the Director could further authorise another officer to perform under section 2(h). The principle against further delegation did not bar that authorisation because the statute expressly permitted it, and rule 133A also contemplated disposal by the Board or a nominated officer. The Deputy Director therefore had jurisdiction to decide the revision, and the revisional order was valid.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Director could validly authorize the Deputy Director to decide revisions under section 32 of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Act, 1964, and whether the revisional order was without jurisdiction.

Analysis: The revisional power under section 32 is vested in the Board, but section 33 permits the Board to delegate its powers to the Director. The definition of "Director" in section 2(h) expressly includes any other officer authorised by the Director to perform all or any of his functions under the Act. Once the Board's revisional power is delegated to the Director, that power becomes one of the Director's functions under the Act, and the Director may authorise another officer to perform it. The principle against further delegation does not bar such authorisation where the statute itself permits it. The revisional mechanism under rule 133A also contemplates disposal by the Board or an officer nominated by it.

Conclusion: The Deputy Director had jurisdiction to decide the revision, and the revisional order was valid.

---