Administrative power under municipal law was held valid without prior hearing where the statute left the decision to executive assessment.

Section 53-A and section 57 of the C. P. and Berar Municipalities Act operated in different fields: section 53-A permitted temporary appointment of an Executive Officer and allocation of powers without dissolving the municipality, while section 57 concerned dissolution or supersession of the committee. The notification appointing an Executive Officer was therefore treated as valid under section 53-A and not as a disguised supersession order. Action under section 53-A was also held administrative, because the statute left the matter to governmental assessment of competence and expediency and did not require a prior hearing. The challenge to the notification failed and costs were awarded.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the notification appointing an Executive Officer was in substance an order under section 57 of the C. P. and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922 and therefore invalid for want of the opportunity contemplated by that provision; (ii) whether action taken under section 53-A of the C. P. and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922 was quasi-judicial so as to require prior notice and an opportunity of hearing.

Issue (i): whether the notification appointing an Executive Officer was in substance an order under section 57 of the C. P. and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922 and therefore invalid for want of the opportunity contemplated by that provision.

Analysis: Section 53-A and section 57 operate in different fields and have different consequences. Section 53-A authorises the temporary appointment of an Executive Officer and the allocation of specified powers to him without dissolving the municipality, while section 57 provides for dissolution or supersession of the committee itself. The existence of some grounds suggesting abuse of power did not compel the State Government to proceed only under section 57, because incompetency could still justify action under section 53-A. The effect of the notification, including the large curtailment of powers, did not convert it into a supersession order when the committee and its office-bearers continued to exist in law.

Conclusion: the notification was validly made under section 53-A and was not vitiated as an under section 57.

Issue (ii): whether action taken under section 53-A of the C. P. and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922 was quasi-judicial so as to require prior notice and an opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: The statutory scheme showed that where the legislature intended a hearing it said so expressly, as in section 57, but no such procedure was provided in section 53-A. The power under section 53-A depended on the State Government's assessment that the committee was not competent and that a temporary executive arrangement would improve administration; that assessment was tied to policy and expediency, not to a duty to adjudicate a lis. The requirement to record reasons did not by itself impose a judicial duty. The majority therefore treated the power as administrative, though the enquiry previously held afforded the appellants ample opportunity in fact.

Conclusion: action under section 53-A was administrative and did not attract the full requirements of prior judicial hearing or certiorari review on that ground.

Final Conclusion: the challenge to the State Government's notification failed, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: where a statute confers a temporary regulatory power on the executive, leaves the decision to policy and expediency, and does not require a hearing, the resulting act is administrative rather than quasi-judicial and cannot be invalidated for want of audi alteram partem unless the statute expressly or by necessary implication so requires.

---