Revisional jurisdiction requires prior authority and recorded reasons; an unspeaking suo motu revision was set aside.

A revisional order was held unsustainable where, on the date it was passed, the officer had not been shown to be the competent revisional authority and the order itself did not record reasons for invoking suo motu revision. The later notification authorising officers as revisional authority could not cure the absence of competence at the relevant time. The text emphasises that a revisional order must disclose primary satisfaction and cogent reasons, because recording reasons is an element of natural justice and is necessary for judicial scrutiny. The order was set aside and the revision proceedings were directed to be dropped, with liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law after hearing the affected party.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisional order was sustainable when, on the date of its passing, the officer had not been authorized as revisional authority and the order did not record reasons for exercise of suo motu revision.

Analysis: The authority purported to act under the revisional power after the appellate order, but the notification authorizing the concerned officers as revisional authority was issued later and was made effective from a prior date. On the date of the impugned order, the officer who passed it was not shown to be the competent authority. The order also disclosed no cogent reasons for invoking suo motu revision. A revisional order must reflect primary satisfaction and reasons, since recording reasons is part of natural justice and is necessary for judicial scrutiny.

Conclusion: The revisional order was unsustainable and was set aside. The revision proceedings were directed to be dropped, while leaving it open to the competent authority to proceed afresh in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing.

---