@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
V.G. Sabhahit, J.@mdashThis Matter is taken up for final hearing with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.
2. This Writ Petition is filed being aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada District, in Case
No. CDS:RAP:20/2002-03 dated 25.11.2003., allowing the revision and remitting the matter to the Assistant Commissioner, Puttur.
3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Deputy Commissioner having remitted the matter to the Assistant Commissioner was not justified in
making certain observations on the merits of the case, which would prejudicially affect the rights of the petitioner.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No. 1
and the learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the only apprehension of the petitioner is that the observation made in the order of
remand passed by the Deputy Commissioner would prejudicially affect the merits of the case of the petitioner before the Assistant Commissioner.
6. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 submitted that the observations made are regarding the irregularities committed by the
revenue authorities and not on the merits of the case.
7. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No. 1 argued in support of the order.
8. I have considered the contentions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.
9. It is clear from the contentions of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the only apprehension of the petitioner is that the Deputy
Commissioner having remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner could not have made any observation on the merits of the case as the
same would amount to deciding the case on authorities. When the matter is remitted by the Deputy Commissioner to the Assistant Commissioner,
the Assistant Commissioner, being a subordinate officer, would be bound by the observations made in the judgment passed by the Deputy
Commissioner. It is well settled that when the matter is remitted to a subordinate authority by the revenue authorities, the authority remanding the
case should refrain from making any observation as the same would cause prejudice to the case of the parties before the authority to whom the
matter is remanded, who is subordinate to the authority passing the order of remand. Under the circumstances, the apprehension of the petitioner
can be safeguarded by observing that the Assistant Commissioner shall dispose of the proceeding afresh without being influenced by any
observation made by the Deputy Commissioner on the merits of the case of the parties.
The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above said observations.