Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

18. Mr. P.G. Barua, learned counsel for the petitioner has faintly submitted that the impugned order was rendered under Section 138(2) of the Act', but no such appeal lay against orders rendered by the State Government. We have already indicated the source of power. We have held that the impugned orders were rendered under the third proviso to Section 22 of the Act'. As such, when the power was there reference to a wrong provision of law in the order did not affect the validity of the impugned orders. Mr. Barua submits that Respondent 5 had no jurisdiction to file any appeal. We have already held that it was a representation made by the petitioner placing before the Government his grievances pointing out the breach of the principles of Natural Justice which the State Government had committed in rendering the earlier orders affecting his rights. It was a post-decisional show cause which Respondent had the right to submit and the State Government had the right to entertain and dispose. On perusal of the order and upon hearing the parties the State Government has by a speaking order set aside the order dt. 5-6-86, thereby also set aside the order dated 6-6-84. When the Government had the power under Section 22(1) of 'the Act' misquoting of the section in the impugned order did not affect the validity of the impugned order. The contention fails.