Where policy vests appellate jurisdiction in the Collector, only the Collector may decide the appeal.

The petitioner challenged orders concerning the withdrawal of its mid-day meal distribution work.

The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) passed the original order on 28 April 2022.

In an earlier writ petition, the High Court directed the petitioner to pursue an appeal before the Collector, District Shivpuri, and directed that its request for interim relief be considered on its merits.

The appeal was instead decided by the Additional Collector on 22 December 2022; the Collector subsequently declined to interfere on 10 January 2023.

The petitioner contended that the policy dated 10 January 2012 designated the Collector as the appellate authority and that its submissions and supporting certificates had not been properly considered.

1. Whether the appeal against the Sub-Divisional Officer’s order was decided by the authority competent under the applicable policy

2. Whether the appeal was dealt with in conformity with the directions in the petitioner’s earlier writ petition

The Court applied the State policy dated 10 January 2012, which designated the Collector as the competent authority to decide an appeal against an order of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue).

It also considered the directions in the High Court’s order dated 12 May 2022 in W.P. No. 11311/2022, which required the petitioner to pursue an appeal before the Collector and required consideration of its interim-relief application on its merits.

The Court proceeded under its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Because the policy assigned appellate jurisdiction to the Collector, the Additional Collector’s decision did not amount to adjudication by the designated appellate authority.

The Collector then declined to decide the appeal independently, relying instead on the Additional Collector’s decision. This failed to comply with both the policy and the earlier writ-court directions.

The Court therefore found the orders legally unsustainable and directed the Collector to reconsider the appeal, including the petitioner’s reply and documentary material, after hearing the concerned parties.

It remanded the appeal to the Collector, District Shivpuri, for fresh consideration in accordance with law, with directions to independently consider the petitioner’s grounds and evidence, afford an opportunity of hearing, and issue a reasoned order.

The Court expressed no opinion on the merits.