2011 (4) TMI 1542 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of Section 347D of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.
2. Similar provisions in Section 256 of the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994.
3. Whether an executive authority can hear appeals from a judicial or quasi-judicial authority.

Summary:

Issue 1: Constitutional Validity of Section 347D of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957

The principal question raised in this appeal is the constitutional validity of Section 347D of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). The grievance of the Appellant is that orders of the Appellate Tribunal are appealable before the Administrator of Delhi i.e., Lt. Governor u/s 347D of the said Act. The main grievance in the public interest litigation is when an appeal is decided by an Appellate Authority which is manned by a Judge of the Civil Court, appeal from the decision of such authority cannot be heard and decided by an executive authority, however high such executive authority may be.

Issue 2: Similar Provisions in Section 256 of the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994

Similar provisions are also there in Section 256 of the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NDMC Act'). The provisions of Section 253 of the NDMC Act are virtually on the same lines. Under Sub-section (3) of Section 347A and Sub-section (3) of Section 253 of the NDMC Act, a person shall not be qualified for appointment as a presiding officer of an Appellate Tribunal unless he is, or has been, a District Judge or an Additional District Judge or has, for at least ten years, held a judicial office. Similarly, Section 355 of the NDMC Act virtually is pari materia with Sub-section (7) of Section 347C of the said Act.

Issue 3: Whether an Executive Authority Can Hear Appeals from a Judicial or Quasi-Judicial Authority

Mr. Harish Salve, learned senior counsel, contended that the provision of hearing of the appeal by the Administrator from an order of the Appellate Tribunal is violative of the concept of judicial review which is enshrined in our Constitution. The learned Counsel submitted that the order of the Appellate Tribunal is certainly a quasi-judicial one being passed by Judicial Authority which has the trappings of the Court and the appeal from such an order cannot lie to any authority except a judicial authority.

The Court held that judicial review is one of the basic features of our Constitution. Any statutory provision which provides for administrative review of a decision taken by a judicial or quasi-judicial body is inconsistent with this postulate and is unconstitutional. The Court declared Section 347D of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and Section 256 of the NDMC Act unconstitutional being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Conclusion:

In view of this decision by this Court, till a proper judicial authority is set up under the aforesaid Acts, the appeals to the Administrator u/s 347D of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and also u/s 256 of the NDMC Act shall lie to the District Judge, Delhi. All pending appeals filed under the erstwhile provisions shall stand transferred to the Court of District Judge, Delhi. However, the decisions which have already been arrived at by the Administrator under the aforesaid two provisions will not be reopened in view of the principles of prospective overruling.

The judgment of the High Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed. There will be no orders as to costs.