Judgment ( 1. ) IN this writ petition preferred under Article 226/227 of the constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the legal validity of the order dated 25. 10. 05 whereby the learned Welfare Commissioner, bhopal Gas Victims, Bhopal, placing reliance on the decision rendered in case of Birjis Khatun Vs. Welfare Commissioner, Bhopal Gas victims, Bhopal and another 2005 (4) M. P. L. J. 51 had declined to interfere with the order passed by Additional Welfare Commissioner. ( 2. ) IT is submitted by Mr. O. P. Namdeo, learned counsel for the respondents that the order passed by the Welfare Commissioner cannot be found fault with inasmuch as the learned Commissioner has not noticed any illegality in the order passed by the Additional Welfare commissioner who has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground of delay of 17 months. . ( 3. ) IT is worth noting that the Dy. Welfare Commissioner has rejected the petitioners claim on the ground of delay of 17 months in filing the appeal. ( 4. ) ON appeal being preferred, the appeal was dismissed on the ground that the appellant by impersonation filed an application exercising suo-motu revision. ( 5. ) THIS Court in Birjis Khatun (supra) has held as under:- "10. The Legislature or its delegate, normally vest the power of revision in an authority to be exercised either (a) suo motu, or (b) on an application by a person aggrieved, or (c) both suo-motu or at the instance of the person aggrieved. Significantly, sub-para (3) of Para 13 of the Scheme does not contain any provisions for exercise of power of revision at the instance or on the request of any aggrieved person, but only provides for exercise of power suo-motu. When it is said that the commissioners power to revise the order passed by any lower authority, is to be exercised suo-motu, it means that the Commissioner may act on information derived from his own sources that is either by perusal of the records of the case or the media reports or the representations/complaints received from any aggrieved person. When a claimant files a petition requesting the commissioner to revise the order of a lower authority, the Commissioner may decide to act on the information contained in such an application and exercise his suo-motu power. When a claimant files a petition requesting the commissioner to revise the order of a lower authority, the Commissioner may decide to act on the information contained in such an application and exercise his suo-motu power. In that event, the exercise of revisional power by the Commissioner is not a result of any right of the claimant to seek revision, but as a result of the commissioner deciding to exercise the power of revision suo-motu, on the basis of information gathered from the representation/petition filed by the claimant. 11. When a petition is filed by a claimant seeking revision of an order of a lower authority, the Commissioner has the discretion to either refuse to entertain such a request or accept the request and revise the order suo motu on the basis of information supplied in the petition. As a claimant aggrieved by an order of the lower authority, has no right to file a revision before the Commissioner, there is no need for the Commissioner to hear such a petitioner before taking a decision either to entertain or reject an application given by the claimant seeking revision. Rejection of a petition seeking exercise of suo motu power is not an order prejudicial to the interest of the claimant and, therefore, there is no need to give an opportunity of showing cause before rejection. Where, however, the Commissioner, on examination of the record, or otherwise, finds some irregularity or error in the order of a lower authority and proposes to exercise the power to revise such order suo-motu, resulting in prejudice to a claimant, then, of course, the commissioner will have to give a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed order, as required under the proviso to para 13 (3), before passing final orders in exercise of the power of revision. "for instance, a person entrusted with a discretion must direct himself properly in law. He must call his own attention to the matters which he is bound to consider. He must exclude from his consideration matters which are irrelevant to the matter that he has to consider If he does not obey those rules, he may truly be said, and often is said, to be acting unreasonably. . . . . . . . WARRINGTON, L. J, I think it was, gave the example of the red-haired teacher, dismissed because she had red hair. . . . . . . . WARRINGTON, L. J, I think it was, gave the example of the red-haired teacher, dismissed because she had red hair. That is unreasonable in one sense. In another sense, it is taking into consideration extraneous matters. " Equally relevant are the observations of a Full bench of this Court in Ushadevi vs. State of M. P. and others, 1990 MPLJ 353 , while dealing with section 42 of the M. P. Ceiling on Agricultural holdings Act, observed : "it cannot be jurisprudentially disputed that revisional jurisdiction is of the nature of supervisory jurisdiction exercised generally by the Superior court or authority and when such Court or authority is invested with power to act suo motu, it carries the implication that complete independence of action is thereby allowed to such court or authority to exercise that power to fulfill the purpose statutorily contemplated. . . . . . . . . Indeed, that power is meant to be exercised to ensure that the purpose and object of the enacted law is not defeated and powers exercised by subordinate authorities under the relevant enactment do not transgress any prescribed parameters producing forbidden result. The revisional authority, in essence, carries the responsibility of ensuring due administration of the law and implementation of the policy underlying the various provisions of the law in question. " ( 6. ) THE learned Welfare Commissioner should have adverted to the same and not dismissed the petition solely relying on Birjis Khatun (supra ). As we understand Birjis Khatun, it lays down a ratio that a revision petition can be rejected if no ground is made out to exercise the suo-motu power but that requires application of mind to the facts of the case. ( 7. ) IN view of the aforesaid, we allow the writ petition and quash the order dated 25. 10. 05 and remit the matter to learned Welfare commissioner to consider the matter afresh as per law keeping in view the enunciations made in Birjis Khatun (supra ). ( 8. ) THE writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.