Judgment K.B.N.SINGH, J. 1. The three petitioners who are brothers have prayed for quashing the order of the additional Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum in Kolhan Title Suit No. 15 of 1967, dated 19-8-1969 as also the order of the Commissioner Chotanagpur Division dated 10/12.04.1971, Copies of both the orders have been filed as Annexures 2 and 1 respectively to the writ petition. The following averments have been made in the writ petition. 2. On the 10.07.1967 respondents 1 to 4 filed Title Suit No. 15 of 1967 in the Court of Kolhan Superintendent at Chaibasa for declaration of title that the plaintiffs are rightful owners of plot No. 1939 (old plot No. 1224) and that the defendants have no right over the same. The suit was valued at Rs. 1,000.00. Following the Wilkinsons Rules prevailing in the Kolhan area to which the suit appertains, on 12-6-1968 the Kolhan Superintendent referred the matter in dispute to arbitration of three panches. On receipt of the award the case was placed before the additional Deputy Commr. of Singhbhum at Chaibasa who heard the parties and decreed the suit in terms of the award. Against that order the petitioners filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Chotanagpur Division who dismissed the appeal by order dated the 10th of April, 1971 (Annexure 1). Thereafter the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Mr. Ghose, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, urged that on the date the suit was filed and the matter was referred to panches the Kolhan Superintendent had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the suit being valued at more than Rs. 300/-. Mr. N. N. Roy, appearing on behalf of the respondents, referred to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents about such an authorisation being made in favour of Shri R. J. Singh, Kolhan Superintendent and after him, in favour of Shri S. S. Sinha, Additional Deputy Commissioner who ultimately disposed of the suit, Mr. Ghose, however, urged that the respondents ought to have filed a copy of the authorisation. In view of the controversy raised, on 11-7-74 we called for the authorisation in question from the Deputy Commissioner of Singhbhum. Ghose, however, urged that the respondents ought to have filed a copy of the authorisation. In view of the controversy raised, on 11-7-74 we called for the authorisation in question from the Deputy Commissioner of Singhbhum. In pursuance thereof the Deputy Commissioner of Singhbhum has sent a copy of the necessary authorisation dated 26-6-1968 from which it appears that the Deputy Commissioner by Memo No. 1348B, dated the 10th of May, 1967 had authorised Shri Ram Janam Singh, Deputy Collector and Kolhan Superintendent of Chaibasa to try suits and proceedings of the value exceeding Rs. 300.00 which was withdrawn by order dated 26-6-1968 and Shri Shyam Sundar Sinha, Additional Deputy Commissioner was vested with similar power under Sec. 2 (b) of the Kolhan Civil Justice (Regulating and Validating) Act, 1966. Mr. Ghose has urged that the Deputy Commissioner should have sent the notification dated 10-5-1967 and in absence thereof it cannot be said that Shri R. J. Singh had the necessary authorisation. There is no substance in this submission. The Deputy Commissioner has referred to the specific Memo No. 1348L, dated 10-5-1967 by which he has authorised Shri Ram Janam Singh to try civil suits of the value exceeding Rs. 300.00 which was being recalled. The fact that the authorisation dated 10-5-1967 was withdrawn clearly shows that there was such an authorisation in existence otherwise there was no meaning in the Deputy Commissioner recalling the same. 4. Mr. Ghose has urged that under Schedule (A) of Sec.2 of the Kolhan Civil Justice (Regulating and Validating) Act, 1966, the Kolhan Superintendent has been conferred power to try suits of the value not exceeding Rs. 300/-. Therefore, no higher power would be delegated to the Kolhan Superintendent by the Deputy Commissioner under Cl. (b) of schedule to S. 2. Sec.2 and the relevant schedule of the said act may usefully be quoted :- "2. 300/-. Therefore, no higher power would be delegated to the Kolhan Superintendent by the Deputy Commissioner under Cl. (b) of schedule to S. 2. Sec.2 and the relevant schedule of the said act may usefully be quoted :- "2. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, or any judgment, decree or order of any court, the officers mentioned in column I of the schedule shall, in regard to the trial of civil suit and proceeding arising within the local limits of the Kolhan with the exception of the areas comprised within the municipality of Chaibassa in the Sadar Subdivision of the district of Singhbhum and hearing of appeal, review or revision arising therefrom exercise the powers which the officers mentioned in the corresponding entries in column 2 thereof exercised under the Wilkinsons rules made under Regulation XIII of 1833, and shall be deemed always to have validly exercised such powers and no order, judgment or decree passed by them shall be deemed to be invalid or shall be called in question in any court or proceeding whatsoever merely on the ground that they were not so empowered. SCHEDULE (See Section 2) Column 1 Column 2 (a) Kolhan Superintendent or any other officer authorised by the Deputy Commmissioner of Singhbhum to try civil suit and proceeding of the value not exceeding three hundred rupees. Munsif (b) Deputy Commissioner of Singhbhum or nay officer authorised by the Deputy Commissioner of Singhbhum to try civil suit and proceeding of the value exceeding three hundred or review arising from the judgment of the Kolhan Superintendent or of any other officer authorised by the Deputy Commissioner to try civil suit and proceeding three hundred rupees. The aforesaid Act validated certain orders passed earlier by the authorities under the Wilkinsons Rule and laid down rules with regard to vesting of power to try suits, by officers mentioned in the schedule. It is true that clause (a) of the schedule authorises the Kolhan Superintendent by designation to try suits and proceedings of value not exceeding Rupees 300/-. It has also provided for an alternative jurisdiction in favour of any other officer if so authorised by the Deputy Commissioner, to try suits and proceedings of value not exceeding Rs. 300/-. Thus Cl. It is true that clause (a) of the schedule authorises the Kolhan Superintendent by designation to try suits and proceedings of value not exceeding Rupees 300/-. It has also provided for an alternative jurisdiction in favour of any other officer if so authorised by the Deputy Commissioner, to try suits and proceedings of value not exceeding Rs. 300/-. Thus Cl. (a) contemplates two types of officers, one the Kolhan Superintendent by designation and the other "any other officer" authorised by the Deputy Commissioner as Munsif. Clause (b) similarly designates the Deputy Commissioner of Singhbhum by designation to try suits and proceedings of the value exceeding Rs. 300/-, and to hear appeal, review etc. arising from the judgments of Kolhan Superintendent or any other officer authorised by the Deputy Commissioner to try civil suits and proceedings of the value not exceeding Rs. 300/-. Under clause (b) also an alternative jurisdiction has been created in favour of "any officer authorised by the Deputy Commissioner to try suits of higher valuation etc. Power has been given to the Deputy Commissioner to authorise "any officer" to try suits of higher valuation and it is not a case of delegating his authority. Mr. Ghoses argument is that the expression "any officer" will not include Kolhan Superintendent, as he has been given power only to try suits and proceedings of value not exceeding Rs. 300.00 under clause (a) of the schedule and his jurisdiction has been statutorily fixed. I do not think that on account of the fact that Kolhan Superintendent has been given power under the statute itself, to try suits upto the value of Rs. 300.00 it necessarily follows that the authorisation contemplated under clause (b) of the schedule excluded him from the category of "any officer" whom the Deputy Commissioner may authorise to try suits of higher valuation. Authorisation under Cl. (b) is not in derogation of his statutory powers. It, on the other hand clothes him with higher power which is not forbidden by the statute. Under clause (b) if the Deputy Commissioner could authorise "any officer" similarly situated as Kolhan Superintendent in that area, it does not stand to reason that simply because Kolhan Superintendent is mentioned by designation, it amounts to his exclusion. It, on the other hand clothes him with higher power which is not forbidden by the statute. Under clause (b) if the Deputy Commissioner could authorise "any officer" similarly situated as Kolhan Superintendent in that area, it does not stand to reason that simply because Kolhan Superintendent is mentioned by designation, it amounts to his exclusion. If the Legislature wanted to exclude the Kolhan Superintendent from the category of "any officer" it could have made its intention clear in this regard by making appropriate exception. In my considered opinion, the express words used in clause (b) are wide enough to include within its ambit Kolhan Superintendent as also one of the officers who could be authorised by the Deputy Commissioner. Such a construction will not result in any anomaly. The only effect of authorisation will be that where Kolhan Superintendent is exercising powers under clause (b), appeal from his order will not lie before the Deputy Commissioner or any other officer authorised under clause (b) but will lie before the Commissioner of Chota Nagpur Division, Governor Generals Agent under the Wilkinsons Rule. The construction I have put will be in aid of advancing the cause of justice in that area for which the aforesaid validating Act has been passed. There is thus no substance in this contention of Mr. Ghose as well. There being no merit in this writ petition it is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case I shall make no order as to costs. UDAY SINHA, J. 5 I agree.