9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... annot recall and/or review his own order as no such power has been conferred under Section 47-A of the Act. A quasi-judicial authority is limited in its functionality in as much as it has to act within the four corners of the statute from which it derives its authority. If the statute does not provide for a particular act, the same cannot be undertaken by that authority. Any such action taken de hors the legislative intent would amount to an overreach and beyond the power of the said authority. The rationale behind limiting the review powers of quasi-judicial authorities lies in ensuring adherence to the principle of separation of powers and preserving the integrity of the legislative scheme. Quasi-judicial authorities, being creatures of statute, must operate within the boundaries set forth by the legislature and therefore they cannot exceed their statutory mandate - The legislature, in its wisdom, may choose to grant limited review powers to certain quasi-judicial authorities based on the nature of the disputes they adjudicate and the need for effective administration of justice. In the instant case, it is clear that no such power was present with the Collector (Stamp), and there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otice on the ground that the order dated December 9, 2020 was a final order which was passed after consideration of the evidence on record and it is not an ex-parte order. The petitioners assailed the legality of the second notice issued to them. (g) Thereafter, the Collector passed a fresh order on February 3, 2023 which is now under challenge in the instant writ petition. SUBMISSION OF THE PETITIONERS 3. Counsel on behalf of the petitioners submits that there is no power conferred on the Collector(Stamp) to recall an order passed under Section 47-A of the Act and subsequently reassess/review his earlier order. The petitioners have relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Milap Chandra Jain vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 1988 All. L.J. 1078 and another judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sunil Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2016(6) AWC 6522. SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS 4. Counsel on behalf of the respondents submits that based on the complaint filed by one Shiv Prasad, inquiry has been started against the Sub Registrar wherein a show cause notice was issued to the Sub Registrar to explain the alleg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. No provision in the Act was brought to our notice from which it would be gathered that the Government had power to review its own order. If the Government had no power to review its own order, it is obvious that its delegate could not have reviewed its order. 7. Again in Chunibhai v. Narayan Rao, AIR 1965 SC 1457 at pp. 1466-67 para 23, their Lordships reiterated the same view as follows: These orders passed by the Collector in the exercise of his revisional powers were quasi-judicial and were final. The Act does not empower the Collector to review an order passed by him under Section 76-A. In the absence of any power of review, the Collector could not subsequently reconsider his previous decisions and hold that there were grounds for annulling or reversing the Mahalkar's order. The subsequent order dated February 17, 1959 reopening the matter was illegal, ultra vires and without jurisdiction. 8. It is unnecessary to encumber this decision with other authorities as it is now too late in the day to contest the settled legal position that in the absence of a provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... review its order in absence of power of review conferred under the Statute. 11. The power of review of quasi judicial authority in absence of specific provision under the statute has been dealt with in several cases of this Court as well as by the Apex Court. The Apex Court in the case of Dr. (Smt.) Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur, U.P. and Ors., reported in MANU/ SC/0104/1987 : (1987) 4 Supreme Court Cases 525 : (AIR 1987 SC 2186) has held that unless power of Review is expressly conferred on the authority by any statute under which it derives its' jurisdiction, the authority concerned has no power to Review its' earlier order. In para-11 of the aforesaid judgment following observations has been made: A quasi-judicial authority cannot review its own order, unless the power of review is expressly conferred on it by the statute under which it derives its jurisdiction. The Vice-Chancellor in considering the question of approval of an order of dismissal of the Principal, acts as a quasijudicial authority. The provisions of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 or of the Statutes of the University do not confer any power of review on the Vice- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount to an overreach and beyond the power of the said authority. 8. Constitutional Courts, such as the High Courts and the Supreme Court, derive their powers and jurisdiction directly from the Constitution of India. These courts are vested with extensive powers, including the authority to interpret the Constitution, adjudicate constitutional matters, and serve as courts of record. On the other hand, quasi-judicial authorities are statutory bodies or officials empowered by specific legislation to adjudicate disputes and make decisions within their defined scope of authority. Unlike constitutional courts, quasi-judicial authorities do not possess inherent powers derived from the Constitution; rather, their jurisdiction and powers are conferred by statutes or delegated legislation. 9. The distinction between constitutional courts and quasi-judicial authorities is significant, particularly when it comes to the exercise of review or recall powers. Constitutional courts, being courts of record under the Constitution, enjoy inherent powers to review their own orders and correct errors in the interest of justice. This inherent power is derived from the constitutional mandate and is essenti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Registrar. However, the affidavit is incomplete and does not contain any mention as to what steps were taken subsequent to the explanation provided by the Sub Registrar. It appears that the matter was put to rest and the inquiry was not taken forward. The allegations made against the Sub Registrar were quite grave in nature, and therefore, the State Government should have ensured that a proper inquiry is carried out. 14. In the realm of legal proceedings, transparency, accountability, and the pursuit of justice are paramount. The allegations made against the Sub Registrar strike at the core of the trust and integrity expected of public officials entrusted with important responsibilities. It is incumbent upon the State Government to diligently investigate these allegations and take appropriate actions to address any wrongdoing. The affidavit submitted to this court raises concerns regarding the adequacy and thoroughness of the inquiry conducted so far. No individual, regardless of their position or authority, is above scrutiny or immune from accountability. Public officials entrusted with the responsibility of upholding the law and serving the interests of the public must conduct th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
