ORDER Misra, J.
1. This revision arises out of proceedings for appointment of a village headman (mukhia) in mauza Nigoha, police station Payagpur, district Bahraich.
2. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate selected the applicant, Fateh Bahadur Singh but the Additional District Magistrate set aside that order and appointed Ram Deo, opposite party instead. Section 45 (3), Criminal P. C., empowers a District Magistrate to make such an appointment subject to the rules framed by the State Government. Against the order of the Additional District Magistrate selecting his opponent, Fateh Bahadur Singh preferred at first what he called a review application and pointed out that since the Additional District Magistrate had concurrent jurisdiction with the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to make the selection, he could not set aside the initial order. The contention did not meet with favour and the review application was, therefore, rejected. Fateh Bahadur Singh now seeks to revise the order of the Additional District Magistrate selecting Ram Deo in preference to him.
3. There is a fatal objection to the entertainment of this revision inasmuch as orders of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Additional District Magistrate constitute executive orders passed by officers specially designated to carry out the provisions of Section 45 (3), Cr. P. C., and not judicial orders of an inferier criminal Court. The proceedings were not of a criminal nature and the revisional powers of the High Court cannot, therefore, be exercised for setting aside the order: see In the matter of the petition of Damma, 29 ALL. 563 : (5 Cr. L. J. 476). It is admitted on behalf of the applicant that the proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate were non-judicial but it is urged that since the Additional District Magistrate entertained an appeal and reversed the initial appointment, the appellate order must be deemed to be a judicial order and as it was without jurisdiction, it must be set aside and the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate restored. The contention, in my judgment, is futile for an executive order is liable to be altered by an executive authority only. Rules which relate to judicial matters can scarcely be imported in such cases.
4. The application is misconceived, I dismiss it.