JUDGMENT K.S. Bakthavatsalam, J. 1. The Petitioner challenges the order of the first respondent appointing the second respondent as Additional Auctioneer in Nagapattinam Division. The petitioner alleges that he is the approved auctioneer and functioning as an auctioneer for the Nagapattinam District for the past 15 years. The second respondent has been appointed as an additional auctioneer by the first respondent contrary to the customs under Rule 12(2) of the Tamil Nadu Pawn Brokers Rules, 1944. It is also stated in the affidavit that Revenue Divisional. Officer is the competent person to appoint an auctioneer for more than one division. The first respondent himself appointed the second respondent as auctioneer against the convention and rules. 2. Notice of motion has been ordered by me on 3rd July 1989. 3. Learned Counsel Mr. Parivudai Nambi, Government Advocate, appears for the first respondent. No appearance on behalf of the second respondent. 4. Mr. N. Palaniappan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, brings to my notice Rule 12(2) of the Tamil Nadu Pawn Brokers Rules 1944, wherein it is stated that an auctioneer approved by the Personal Assistant (General) to the Collector of Madras or the Revenue Divisional Officer, as the case may be, shall be competent to conduct public auctions under these rules only within the area specified by the Officer approving the auctioneer. Under Sub-rule 12(1) of the Tamil Nadu Pawn Brokers Rules, 1944, the auctioneer to whom the sale of a pledge by public auction is entrusted shall be a person approved by the Personal Assistant (General) to the Collector of Madras in the City of Madras and the Revenue Divisional Officer elsewhere. 5. Mr. Arivudai Nambi, Government Advocate, appearing for the first respondent is not able to defend the order. In my view, the rules do not empower the District Revenue Officer to pass the impugned order. My attention is not drawn to any rule which empowers the first respondent to pass the impugned order. 6. In view of Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu Pawn Brokers Rules, 1944, the impugned order cannot be sustained. As such, the order is set aside as one passed without jurisdiction. Petition will stand allowed. No costs.