ORDER K.K. Lahoti, J. Shri V.K. Shukla, Advocate for petitioner. Shri Sudesh Varma, Government Advocate for respondents 1 and 3. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, Advocate for respondent No. 4. The petitioner has challenged order dated 2-12-2005 passed by M.P. State Co-operative Tribunal, Bhopal in Revision Case No. 320/2004 by which the Tribunal has turned down the objection of the petitioner in respect of non-entertainability of the revision and found that the revision is entertainable u/s 77(14) of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). This order has been assailed by the petitioner on following grounds : That the impugned order (P/l) passed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chhatarpur on 27-2-2004 was an appealable order u/s 78 of the Act and the Tribunal erred in entertaining the revision. Reliance is placed to a Single Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Malharrao vs. Managing Committee Sahakari Samarth Mandal, 2002 RN 353 and submitted that this petition be allowed and the proceedings before the Tribunal may be quashed. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 supported the order passed by the Tribunal and submitted that the powers u/s 77(14) of the Act of the Tribunal are wide and provides action suo motu or on an application of party to call for and examine the record of any proceedings in which no appeal lies to it. In this case, it is not in dispute that no appeal lies before the Tribunal against order Annexure P/l so the Tribunal has rightly entertained the revision to satisfy itself as to the legality or propriety of the order Annexure P/l. To appreciate rival contentions of the parties, the provision of subsection (14) of section 77 may be seen. (14) The Tribunal may suo motu or on the application of a party, call for and examine the record of any proceedings in which no appeal lies to it, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any decision or order passed. If in any case, it appears to the Tribunal that any such decision or order should be modified, annulled or reversed, the Tribunal may pass such order thereon as it may deem just. If in any case, it appears to the Tribunal that any such decision or order should be modified, annulled or reversed, the Tribunal may pass such order thereon as it may deem just. The aforesaid provision gives wide power to the Tribunal to call for and examine any record or any proceedings of any subordinate authority in which no appeal lies to it, either suo motu or on an application filed by any party. This power has been given for the purpose of satisfying the Tribunal as to the legality or propriety of any decision or order passed by any subordinate authority. The aforesaid power is wide and gives the Tribunal a supervisory jurisdiction over all the authorities, who are functioning under it. The Tribunal after satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any such decision or order, is empowered to modify, annul or reverse or may pass such order thereon as it may deem just. When no appeal lies to the Tribunal, the Tribunal may exercise its power under sub-section (14) of section 77. In Malharrao vs. Managing Committee Sahakari Samarth Mandal and others, 2002 RN 353 (supra), the learned Single Judge of this Court considering the objection held thus : Having heard the L. C. for parties and having examined the issue in the light of the legal provisions, I am inclined to allow the writ petition and set aside the order impugned passed by the Tribunal. In my opinion, an order dated 20-4-2001 passed by the Assistant Registrar u/s 53(1) of the Act was admittedly an order appealable u/s 78(1 )(a) of the Act to the Registrar. Since the order of supersession was passed by the Assistant Registrar and, therefore, it is expressly made appealable to the Registrar he being subordinate to the Registrar. In a situation like the one, the remedy of respondent No. 1 was to file an appeal u/s 78(1 )(a) of the Act rather than to invoke the revisional powers of the Tribunal u/s 77(14) of the Act. Prima facie and on the fact of it, no revision is tenable against an order passed u/s 53(1) because it is made appealable u/s 78(1 )(a) of the Act. This being the legal position, an order passed by the Tribunal in exercise of its revisional powers u/s 77(14) ibid is without jurisdiction. It is not legally sustainable. Prima facie and on the fact of it, no revision is tenable against an order passed u/s 53(1) because it is made appealable u/s 78(1 )(a) of the Act. This being the legal position, an order passed by the Tribunal in exercise of its revisional powers u/s 77(14) ibid is without jurisdiction. It is not legally sustainable. An order passed without jurisdiction cannot be upheld and has to be set aside by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In a situation like the one, the question of prejudice or locus standi of a person is of no significance. If any illegality is brought to the notice of the Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, it is the duty of the High Court to ensure that legal mistake has to be rectified. The same question has been considered by the Apex Court in Smt. Vidya Vati Vs. Shri Devi Das, in which the Apex Court held thus: 7. When the hearing of the appeal commenced, a contention of a preliminary nature was advanced on behalf of the respondent and it was that since the order of the learned Sub-Judge impugned in revision before the High Court was an order allowing the review application, it was appealable under Order XLIII, Rule 1, clause (w) of the CPC and hence no revision was competent to the High Court u/s 115 of the CPC and the High Court was right in rejecting the revision application. Now, there can be no doubt that u/s 115 of the CPC a revision application can lie before the High Court from an order made by a Subordinate Court only if no appeal lies from that order to the High Court. The words of limitation used in section 115 are "in which no appeal lies thereto" and these words clearly mean that no appeal must lie to the High Court from the order sought to be revised, because an appeal is a much larger remedy than a revision application and if any appeal lies that would afford sufficient relief and there would be no reason or justification for invoking the revisional jurisdiction. The question therefore, here is whether an appeal against the order made by the learned Sub-Judge allowing the review application lay to the High Court. If it did, the revision application would be clearly incompetent. The question therefore, here is whether an appeal against the order made by the learned Sub-Judge allowing the review application lay to the High Court. If it did, the revision application would be clearly incompetent. Now Order XLIII, Rule 1, CI. (w) undoubtedly provides an appeal against an order allowing a revision application, but the order allowing the review application in the present case was made by the learned Sub-Judge, and hence an appeal against it lay to the District Court and not to the High Court, and, obviously, since no appeal lay against the order of the learned Sub-Judge to the High Court, the revision application could not be rejected as incompetent. The preliminary contention must, in the circumstances, be decided against the respondent. The Apex Court held that the High Court may entertain a revision from an order made by a Subordinate Court in which if no appeal lies from the order. The word 'revision' is used in section 115 of Civil Procedure Code. In which no appeal lies thereto and this word clearly mentions that no appeal lies to the High Court from the order sought to be revised where an appeal lies to the District Judge and not to High Court, a revision application before the High Court was found to be maintainable and it was held that it cannot be rejected as incompetent. The factual position in the present case is similar. The order P/l was not appealable before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has entertained the revision invoking power under sub-section (14) of section 77 of the Act. Though the aforesaid powers are to be used sparingly and not in a routine manner, as the statutory provision provides statutory appeal against the order, but by itself will not be ground to interfere with the impugned order. As the matter is seized with the Tribunal, the Tribunal shall be free to consider the merits of the case. As the point involves in this case has been considered and decided by the Apex Court, while in Malharrao's case (supra) the judgment of Apex Court in Smt. Vidya Vati's case (supra) not brought to the notice of the Court, which is apparently in conflict with the law laid down by the Apex Court. This Court is bound by the law laid down by the Apex Court. With the aforesaid discussion, this petition is dismissed. This Court is bound by the law laid down by the Apex Court. With the aforesaid discussion, this petition is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed