Quasi Judicial Authority Not Entitled To Delegate Its Power When Statute Does Not Mention About Such Power: Bombay HC
The Bombay High Court observed that a quasi judicial authority is not entitled to delegate its powers when no such power is mentioned in the relevant statute.
The Court said that in the absence of such powers, the entire exercise will be considered illegal and without any jurisdiction.
The challenge in the petition is the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, thereby rejecting the application filed by the Petitioner under Section 16(1)(i) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961.
The Bench of Justice Bharat P. Deshpande held, “The main contention in the present petition is that the concerned Authority, who has been given powers to conduct the enquiry/decide the application, has no authority to delegate such powers or to call for the fact finding report. The authority deciding one of the clauses of Section 16(1) of the said Act on the basis of a complaint is acting as quasi judicial authority. Such quasi judicial authority is not entitled to delegate his powers to the subordinate as no such power is mentioned in the Act.”
Advocate S.S. Ghate appeared on behalf of the Petitioner and Advocate V.D. Raut appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
The Court said, “A perusal of Section 40 of the said Act as quoted above would clearly go to show that the disqualification is automatic on the finding that the person against whom such complaint is filed, is found involved in any of the clauses mentioned in sub- section (1) of Section 16 of the Act."
In the present matter, the Divisional Commissioner delegated his powers firstly to the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad and that too behind the back of the Petitioner and then the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad sub-delegated such powers to the Block Development Officers thereby directing him to conduct enquiry and submit his report along with his opinion.
"Thus in absence of such powers with the Divisional Commissioner, the entire exercise carried out by calling of the reports has to be considered as illegal and without any jurisdiction.”, the Court held.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Petition and application filed by the Petitioner remanded back to the Divisional Commissioner to decide in accordance with the law within a month.
Cause Title: Sau. Anjali v. Zilla Parishad, Nagpur and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-NAG:3104)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocate S.S. Ghate
Respondents: Advocate V.D. Raut