JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. L. Iralu, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. N. Angami, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondents. 2. The Petitioner herein is aggrieved by the enquiry initiated by the Respondent No.3 vide an order dated 14.03.2024 and the subsequent order dated 09.09.2024 passed by the Respondent No.3. 3. The issue involved in the instant proceedings lies within a very short compass. The issue is as to whether the Respondent No.3 who is the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) working in the Establishment of the Deputy Commissioner, Wokha, Nagaland has the jurisdiction to make enquiry in respect to the grievances relating to distribution of foodgrains. 4. This Court duly takes note of that the Government of Nagaland in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-Section (1) of Section 40 of the National Food Security Act, 2013 (for short ‘the Act of 2013’) had framed a set of Rules in the name and style of “ Nagaland Food Security Rules , 2016” (for short ‘the Rules of 2016’). Chapter-3 of the said Rules of 2016 is with the heading “Grievance Redressal System”. Rule 10 of the Rules of 2016 deals with hearing before the District Grievance Redressal Officers (for short ‘DGRO’). The ADC HQ in terms with Rule 10(a) have been designated by the Rules of 2016 as the DGRO in respect to matters relating to expeditious and effective redressal of grievances of the aggrieved persons in matters relating to distribution of entitled food grains. The manner in which the DGRO can receive complaints and how enquiry can be carried out by the DGRO has been specifically stipulated in Sub-Rule (b), (e) and (f) of Rule 10 of the Rules of 2016. 5. In the backdrop of the above, if this Court duly takes note of the facts involved and more particularly from what has been stated in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, it reveals that a complaint was filed before the Deputy Commissioner, Wokha by various villagers alleging that the AAY allotment amounting to 580 bags from August, 2021 to December, 2021 have been misappropriated and further the Transport Subsidy from the Department of Food and Civil Supplies, Wokha for an amount of Rs.79,000/- have been also misappropriated. 1, 2 and 3, it reveals that a complaint was filed before the Deputy Commissioner, Wokha by various villagers alleging that the AAY allotment amounting to 580 bags from August, 2021 to December, 2021 have been misappropriated and further the Transport Subsidy from the Department of Food and Civil Supplies, Wokha for an amount of Rs.79,000/- have been also misappropriated. The Deputy Commissioner, Wokha on receipt of the said complaint, as stated in the said affidavit-in-opposition, forwarded the same to the Respondent No.3 and the Respondent No.3 on the basis of the said, initiated an enquiry as would be seen from the order dated 14.03.2024 and further on 18.03.2024, the enquiry proceedings was held and on 30.04.2024, a report was submitted. 6. It is further seen that the Respondent No.3 had passed the impugned order on 09.09.2024. However, it is very strange to take note of that when there is already a Grievance Redressal System as mandated in the Rules of 2016 and the ADC HQ have been designated as the DGRO and the said Rules duly stipulates as to who would receive the complaints and how the complaints would be dealt with by the DGRO and what order the DGRO is competent to pass, the Respondent No.3 as well as the Deputy Commissioner, Wokha could not have exercised the jurisdiction in view of Rule 10 of the Rules of 2016. 7. At this stage, this Court however finds it pertinent to take note of the submissions made by Mr. N. Angami, the learned Government Advocate for the Respondents who fairly submitted that as per Rule 10 of the Rules of 2016, it is the ADC HQ who have been conferred with the jurisdiction as the DGRO and therefore appropriate directions be passed by this Court directing the Deputy Commissioner, Wokha to forward the complaint dated 24.01.2024 to the Respondent No.2 so that appropriate action can be taken in terms with Rule 10 of the Rules of 2016. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that as the allegations in the instant case relates to misappropriation of food grains which is a very serious allegations, and as such, further directions be also issued to the Respondent No.2 to initiate appropriate action within a time frame. 8. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that as the allegations in the instant case relates to misappropriation of food grains which is a very serious allegations, and as such, further directions be also issued to the Respondent No.2 to initiate appropriate action within a time frame. 8. It is the opinion of this Court that the Deputy Commissioner, Wokha who had duly received the representation dated 24.01.2024 ought to have guided those complainants to file the same before the ADC HQ rather than directing the Respondent No.3 to make enquiry. 9. This Court also takes note of the representation submitted on 24.01.2024 which relates to allegations of misappropriation and such allegations are required to be enquired into by the appropriate authority. However, any orders being passed by an authority who is not conferred with the jurisdiction cannot be allowed to exist. 10. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i) The enquiry so initiated by the Respondent No.3 vide the order dated 14.03.2024 is nonest and accordingly, the order dated 14.03.2024, the enquiry held by the Respondent No.3 and the report dated 30.04.2024 are interfered with. (ii) The order dated 09.09.2024 passed by the Respondent No.3 was without jurisdiction and the same is interfered with. (iii) This Court directs the Deputy Commissioner, Wokha to ensure that the representation dated 24.01.2024 is forwarded to the Respondent No.2 who is the ADC and the DGRO. (iv) This Court observes that the Respondent No.2 herein upon receipt of the compliant take action as mandated in Rule 10 of the Rules of 2016 without being influenced by the observations made hereinabove. (v) Interim order so passed earlier stands vacated.