(1) SPECIAL leave granted. (2) THE facts reveal that the husband of the appellant expired on 25-6-1988. The allegation is that it was the direct effect of MIC gas. He had first raised a claim for personal injury but after his death, his widow claimed Rs.1,39,000 by way of compensation. Since the deceased had already received a sum of Rs.39,000 by way of interim relief, the surplus claim of Rs.1 lakh had to be examined. The Deputy Commissioner awarded compensation on the ground that death was the direct result of the ill-effects of MIC gas. The certificate of Dr Khanna went to show that the deceased received treatment between 5-12-1984 and 4-11-1988 but his certificate to this effect has been brushed aside by the Additional Welfare Commissioner in suo motu revision on the ground that no prescriptions have been produced. The prescriptions produced were brushed aside on the ground that the name of the patient was not written on the prescriptions. The fact however remains that the deceased was paid ex gratia payment of Rs.10,000 as a victim of MIC gas which can raise an inference that the authorities had treated him to have suffered the personal injury on that account. It is seen from the evidence of Dr Ram Kishore Dixit that he had examined him at the clinic and had found him suffering from breathlessness, skin disease and swelling of eyes on 10-2-1988. These are symptoms of the ill-effects of the gas. He was advised to undergo both pathological and radiological examinations. Dr Ram Kishore mentioned that in the absence of those reports, he was not in a position to give any definite opinion. Once the Deputy Commissioner had examined the evidence and had relied on it, and that evidence showed that the victim had suffered on account of the ill-effects of M1C gas, unless it was found that there was an error apparent on the face of the record, it was notcorrect on the part of the Additional Welfare Commissioner to entertain a suo motu revision and thereafter reassess the evidence. Even where two views are possible and the view taken by the Additional Welfare Commissioner is found to be a possible view, that does not entitle him to upset the decision of the Deputy Commissioner in suo motu revision. Even where two views are possible and the view taken by the Additional Welfare Commissioner is found to be a possible view, that does not entitle him to upset the decision of the Deputy Commissioner in suo motu revision. The exercise of suo motu power would be permitted only where there is a gross irregularity resulting in miscarriage of justice or there is an error apparent on the face of the record. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the First Additional Welfare Commissioner was not justified in interfering with the order of the Deputy Commissioner. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of 5-5-1996 passed in suo motu revision proceedings and restore the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 6-10-1993. We direct payment accordingly. The appeal is allowed accordingly with no order as to costs.