1973 (5) TMI 98 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appointment of trustees under Section 15(1)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966, is a quasi-judicial function.
2. Whether the impugned order of appointing trustees needed to be a speaking order.
3. The validity of Section 15 of the Act.
4. The necessity of a speaking order in administrative decisions.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Quasi-Judicial Function of Trustee Appointments:
The primary issue was whether the appointment of trustees under Section 15(1)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966, is a quasi-judicial function. The court referred to several precedents to determine the nature of quasi-judicial functions. The essential characteristics of a quasi-judicial act include:
- A lis (dispute) between two parties.
- Objective satisfaction rather than subjective satisfaction.
- A duty to act judicially.

The court concluded that the appointment of trustees did not meet these criteria. There was no dispute between parties, no proposition and opposition, and no duty to act judicially was imposed by the statute. The court stated, "It is hardly necessary to say that in this case the respondent had no right to be appointed a trustee; nor had any of the other persons who were appointed trustees. There was no question of a proposition and an opposition."

2. Necessity of a Speaking Order:
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh had quashed the appointment of nine trustees on the ground that the order was not a speaking order. The Supreme Court disagreed with this view, stating that the administrative authority does not need to weigh the relative merits of various candidates in making the appointment of trustees. The court emphasized, "But that is not to say that it must set out the reasons as to why it has appointed somebody as trustee and not appointed somebody else as a trustee."

3. Validity of Section 15 of the Act:
The court upheld the validity of Section 15 of the Act, referencing its earlier decision in K. A. Samajam v. Commr, H. R. & C.E. [1971] (2) S.C.R. 878, which held that the power to appoint non-hereditary trustees or executive officers under Sections 15 and 27 is for ensuring better and efficient administration and management of the institution or endowment. The court stated, "We, therefore, proceed on the basis that section 15 is valid."

4. Necessity of a Speaking Order in Administrative Decisions:
The court analyzed whether the administrative authority's decision required a speaking order. It concluded that the Legislature had left the matter to the discretion of the appointing authority, subject to guidelines laid down in Sections 15 and 16. The court noted, "The administrative authority concerned does not have to weigh the relative merits of various candidates in making the appointment of trustees."

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The court held that the appointment of trustees under Section 15(1)(a) is not a quasi-judicial function and does not require a speaking order. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs. The court's decision emphasized the administrative nature of the trustee appointments and upheld the validity of Section 15 of the Act. The judgment clarified that the administrative authority's discretion, guided by the statutory provisions, does not necessitate detailed reasoning for each appointment.