9911796707
TMI Blog1973 (5) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fice of the trustees, whose appointment was challenged by the respondent, was over and the respondent, therefore, contended that the appeal should be dismissed as having become infructuous. On behalf of the State of Andhra Pradesh. it was urged that the question is one of considerable importance to it- and that appointment of trustees to a number of institutions is being held up because of the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. We, therefore, indicated that we would be prepared to hear the appeal but would make it conditional on the respondent getting his costs from the appellant irrespective of the result. The State of Andhra Pradesh has no objection. It appears that the respondent has also filed a suit claiming that the temple in question is either a private family temple not falling within the definition of the term temple, in the Act or at least that he is a hereditary trustee thereof. That suit is still pending. The decision in this appeal therefore, simply proceeds on the basis that the respondent was one of the persons who had applied to be appointed as a trustee of the temple in question. We are, therefore, concerned only with the question whether in appointing trus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the rights of parties, the decision is quasi- judicial, does not appear to be sound. Further on the learned Chief Justice said It is broadly stated that when the fact has to be determined by an objective test and when that decision affects rights of someone, the decision or act is quasi-judicial. This last statement overlooks the aspect that every decision of the executive generally is a decision of fact and in most cases affects the rights of someone or the other. Because an executive authority has to determine certain objective facts as a preliminary step in the discharge of $in executive function, it does not follow that it must determine those facts judicially. When the Executive authority has to form an opinion about an objective. matter as a preliminary step to the exercise of a' certain power conferred on it, the determination of the objective fact and the exercise of the power based thereon are alike matters of an administrative character and are not amenable to the writ of certiorari. To the like effect is the observation of Fazl Ali, J. in the same case The mere fact that an executive authority has to decide something does not make the decision judicial. It is the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are not two parties apart from the authority proposing to do the act and the subject opposing it, the final determination of the authority will yet be a quasi-judicial act provided the authority is required by the statute to act judicially. In other words, while the presence of two parties besides the deciding authority will prima facie and in the absence of. any other factor impose upon the authority the duty to act judicially, the absence of two such parties is not decisive in taking the act of the authority out of the category of quasi- judicial act if the, authority is nevertheless required by the statute to act judicially. The observations in Advard's case were quoted with approval by Das, C.J. in Shri Radeshywn Khare Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh Ors. [1959] S.C.R.1440 S. K. Das, J. who in general agreed with the learned Chief Justice in that case observed : To get to the bottom of the distinction, we must go a little deeper into the content of the expression 'duty to act judicially'. As has been repeated so often, the question may arise in widely differing circumstances and a precise, clear-cut or exhaustive definition of the expression is not p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hard and fast rule or an inexorable rule of guidance. In Gullapalli Nageswarg Rao Orv. Andhra Pradesh State Road' Transport Corporation Anr. [1959] (Suppl.) 1 S.C.R. 319 Subba Rao, J., after referring to the various decisions on this subject held : whether an administrative tribunal has a duty to act judicially should be gathered from the provisions of the particular statute and the rules made thereunder, and they clearly express the view that if an 'authority is called upon to decide respective rights of contesting parties or, to put it in other words, if there is a list, ordinarily there will be a duty on the part of the said authority to act judicially. 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. There is, therefore, no question of any list. Nor is here any question of contest between the authority proposing to do the act and the subject opposing it. Such a question will arise only 'If any right of the subject is affected. None of the other tests laid down above are satisfie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
