JUDGMENT A.K. Sharma, Member. - This reference dated March 29, 1974 has come up from the learned Addl. Commissioner, Lucknow Division, in revision proceedings, against the order of the learned Addl. Collector, Rae Bareli, passed on December 31, 1973 for suo motu action against two Patta-holders, Amar Pal Singh and Brijpal Singh. 2. The proceedings started on complaint dated October 19, 1973 filed by Rama Nand before the Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Rae Bareli under Section 198(2) of the Z.A. and L.R. Act for the cancellation of the Patta of the Gaon Sabha land in village Moreni in favour of Amar Pal Singh and Baij Pal Singh. The Pattas were granted on June 2, 1970 and July 12, 1970 by the Land Management Committee (LMC) for a number of plots. The Asstt. Collector, 1st Class called for a report from the Tahsildar. The Naib-Tahsildar put up his report on December 17, 1973, on the same day it was forwarded by the Tahsildar to the learned Asstt. Collector who ordered on December 31, 1973 that suo motu action be taken. 3. The Patta-holder filed the revision petition against this order. Objection has been filed on behalf of the revisionists against the recommendation. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the revision was maintainable even against an interlocutory order, if it raised a question of jurisdiction or wrong exercise of jurisdiction. He has cited 1957 R.D. 411 and 1976 A.W.C. (Revenue) 103, in support of his contention. He pointed out that the Pattas had been duly given by the L.M.C. and the Patta-holders were being harassed by the O.P. for personal motives and that there was nothing before the Asstt Collector, 1st Class to show that any irregularity had been committed by the L.M.C. in granting the said Pattas. He urged that since the facts before the Asstt. Collector', 1st Class were not sufficient to disclose that the Pattas were liable to be cancelled, therefore, the order dated December 31, 1973 for suo motu action was passed without jurisdiction. 5. Learned counsel for O.P. has argued that the recommendation of the learned Addl. Commissioner was correct because the impugned order, passed by the Asstt. Collector, 1st Class, was an interlocutory order and not an order of the nature of a 'case decided'. 5. Learned counsel for O.P. has argued that the recommendation of the learned Addl. Commissioner was correct because the impugned order, passed by the Asstt. Collector, 1st Class, was an interlocutory order and not an order of the nature of a 'case decided'. Further he contended that the learned Addl Collector had powers to proceed suo motu and, therefore his order was within his jurisdiction. In support he cited 1971 R.D. 10 and 1966 R.D. 220. 6. There is no doubt that the power to order suo motu proceedings for cancellation of the Patta inheres with the Asstt. Collector, 1st Class. But the question here is whether this power has been correctly exercised or not by him. 7. I have gone through the record of the case. The Naib-Tahsildar's report dated December 17, 1973 which was only forwarded by the Tahsildar the same day, is the basis of the said order. This does not make out any case for the exercise of suo mtotu powers. It is known that the Lekhpal is ex-officio Secretary of the L.M.C. The report does not contain any reference to the Secretary of the L.M.C. the relevant record of the L.M.C., and does not mention that any rule was violated by the L.M.C. in granting the said Pattas and what was the extent of the illegality or irregularity committed. 8. Suo motu action requires that the authority which undertakes suo motu action has assured itself beyond reasonable doubt that a prima facie case exists for exercising that particular discretionary power. 'Prima facie', does not mean 'on the surface', or superficially or seemingly. It means that facts brought up clearly disclose a case for suo motu action; that the evidence briefly collected, was sufficient to prove that a legally wrong decision was taken, whereby wrong persons acquired a certain interest of advantage. The question of limitation should also be looked into. It should be previously known to the authority exercising suo motu powers what specific illegalities and/or irregularities have been committed and what are those sections of an Act and Rules or paras of Manuals thereunder which have been transgressed. The authority concerned is not permitted to find a case made out for it in the course of the proceedings, hoping from some vague beginning to arrive providentially at some certainties. The authority concerned is not permitted to find a case made out for it in the course of the proceedings, hoping from some vague beginning to arrive providentially at some certainties. At the same time the existence of a prima facie case does not mean that the mind of the competent authority is made up about it. It only means that there is a sound case to proceed with and the authority is bound to give the notified party full opportunity to have its say as provided in the prescribed procedure. Exercise of suo motu powers requires, therefore both a prima facie case and an open mind. 9. In the instant case the Naib-Tahsildar has submitted a perfectly useless report, if the purpose was to exercise suo motu powers. If it discloses anything, it is that there is no case whatsoever for exercising suo motu powers. The Naid-Tahsildar has not even referred to the resolution of the L.M.C. or pointed to any material irregularity or illegality. He has not gone anywhere near the record and looked into the eligibility or otherwise of persons who have been granted the Pattas. The Tahsildar has also not cared to comment on such a report. The learned Asstt. Collector, 1st Class had, therefore, no case before him to exercise his discretion for suo motu action. 10. I, therefore, do not agree that the impugned order is an innocent interlocutory order requiring no interference in revision. The record discloses a patently wrong exercise of jurisdiction, resulting in injustice to the revisionist. 11. It may still be that the Pattas have been wrongly given and to wrong persons. But there has to be an honest case for it. There is none here. 12. Disagreeing with the recommendation of the learned Addl. Commissioner. I set aside the impugned order dated December 31, 1973, and allow the revision. No order as to costs. 13. C.C.O. No. 850 for R.D.