As regards the second part of the prayer, the petitioners filed a copy of letter in L.Dis.No.E2237/2012, dated 20.11.2012, of respondent No.2 addressed to respondent No.3, wherein he has requested the latter to enquire into the aspect of issue of pattadar passbooks and title deeds to respondent No.4 and submit a report. The petitioners approached respondent No.2 in the latter’s capacity as the appellate authority against the action of No.3 in issuing pattadar passbooks and title deeds to respondent No.4. With the decision taken by respondent No.3 for issuing the pattadar passbooks and title deeds to respondent No.4, he has become functus officio. Respondent No.2 being the appellate authority cannot call upon respondent No.3 to submit a report, as the latter is not expected to take a view different from the one which he has already taken in favour of respondent No.4. Respondent No.3 being the custodian of the record, respondent No.2 as an appellate authority can only call for the record from respondent No.3. Respondent No.2 has to apply his mind independently based on such record, without calling for any report or opinion from the lower authority whose decision is the subject matter of the appeal before him. If the appellate or revisional authorities are guided by the opinion of the lower authorities in the appeals or the revisions arising out of the orders passed by such lower authorities, the element of objectivity and neutrality will be seriously jeopardised and the appellate and revisional authorities will be abdicating their appellate or revisional functions as there is a likelihood of their being swayed away by the opinions of the lower authorities. Therefore, the practice of the appellate or revisional authorities in calling for the reports from the lower authorities against whose decision they sit in appeal or revision needs to be discouraged, nay, discontinued.
