JUDGMENT : Narasimham, C.J. - This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution against an order dated the 27th June 1959 passed by the Member Board of Revenue, directing the transfer of an appeal, u/s 10 of the Orissa Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (Orissa Act No. 29 of 1952) to the Revenue Divisional Commissioner for disposal. 2. A house in Cuttack town of which the, Petitioner was a tenant, was requisitioned under the provisions of the aforesaid Act by the Collector. Section 10 of the Act provides for an appeal to the State Government against an order passed by the requisitioning authority. But Section 17 authorises the State Government to delegate its appellate powers to any officer subordinate it. In exercise of this power of delegation the State Government in Orissa Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Rule 1953 directed that appeals u/s 10 of the aforesaid Act shall be addressed to the Member Board of Revenue (vide Rules 10). Presumably the appeal in question was filed before the Member. Board of Revenue by virtue of the deligated power conferred on him by this Rule. 3. The member, Board of Revenue has passed a curious order. He noticed that there was no specific provision, either in the Orissa Revenue Divisional Commissioner Rules or in the Board of Revenue Rules transferring the power of hearing appeals u/s of the aforesaid. Act either to the Board or to the Commissioner. But he thought that this was a fit case for the Commissioner to deal with, rather than Board of Revenue. 4. In deciding as to what is the forum for hearing an appeal there is no question of any discretion with the Member of the Board of Revenue. He must apply the statutory provisions strictly after interpreting them properly. If there was no provision either in the Orissa Revenue Divisional Commissioners Rules or in the Board of Revenue Rules dealing with the subject, he should have followed the provision of Rule 11 of the Orissa Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Rules 1953 and heard the appeal himself Our attention however drawn to a latter notification of the Home Department No. 2B/1-10/59-15/74 dated the 7th August 1959, by which rule 11 of the said Rules was amended and the Revenue Divisional Commissioner was made the appellate authority under that Rule instead of Board of Revenue. But this amendment came into force on a date latter than the filing of the appeal in question and the right of the parties so far as this appeal is concerned, should be decided on the basis of the law as it stood on the date of filing of the appeal and not on the basis of law as it stood on the date of amendment. The principle laid down in Colonial Sugar Refining Co, Ltd., v. Irving (1), which has been followed in several Indian decisions, should apply. The Member, Board of Revenue should therefore have heard the appeal on merits. 5. His order dated 27th June 1959 is accordingly set aside and he is directed to re-hear Appeal Case No. 1 of 1959-60 and dispose of the same according to law. The application is therefore allowed. But there will be no order for costs. Das, J. 6. I agree. Final Result : Allowed