2011 (4) TMI 1542 - SC - Indian Laws

Court invalidates Delhi Municipal Corporation Act and NDMC Act sections allowing executive authority to hear appeals.

The Court declared Section 347D of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and Section 256 of the NDMC Act unconstitutional as they allowed appeals from ... Judicial review - quasi-judicial authority - appeal to executive authority - rule of law - independence of judiciary - deprivation of adjudication by an independent forum - prospective overruling - Article 14Judicial review - quasi-judicial authority - appeal to executive authority - Article 14 - Constitutional validity of Section 347D of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and Section 256 of the NDMC Act insofar as they provide appeals from Appellate Tribunals to the Administrator. - HELD THAT: - The Appellate Tribunals under the Acts are constituted to be presided over by persons who are or have been district judges or have held judicial office for ten years and, by statute, possess certain trappings and powers of a Civil Court, rendering their proceedings judicial or quasi judicial (paras 3-6). A statutory provision permitting an executive authority (the Administrator/Lieutenant Governor) to hear appeals from such judicial or quasi judicial bodies places review of judicial determinations in the hands of the executive and is incompatible with the constitutional concept of judicial review and the rule of law. Reliance on precedents distinguishing tribunals and administrative appellate bodies is inapposite where an executive reviews decisions of a body that exercises judicial power; consistent authority of this Court (including P. Sambamurthy and L. Chandra Kumar) establishes that administrative review of judicial or quasi judicial decisions is unconstitutional. Applying these principles, Section 347D of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act and Section 256 of the NDMC Act are declared unconstitutional as violative of Article 14 to the extent they place appeals from such Appellate Tribunals before the Administrator (paras 14-16, 24). [Paras 5, 6, 16, 24]Section 347D of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and Section 256 of the NDMC Act are unconstitutional insofar as they allow appeals from Appellate Tribunals to the Administrator.Prospective overruling - independence of judiciary - deprivation of adjudication by an independent forum - Interim remedy and consequential directions following the declaration of unconstitutionality. - HELD THAT: - Having declared the impugned provisions unconstitutional, the Court directed that until a proper judicial appellate authority is constituted under the Acts, appeals which would have lain to the Administrator shall lie to the District Judge, Delhi. All pending appeals filed under the impugned provisions are to be transferred to the Court of the District Judge, Delhi. Decisions already taken by the Administrator under the impugned provisions are not to be reopened, in accordance with the principle of prospective overruling adopted by the Court (para 25). [Paras 25]Pending and future appeals under the impugned provisions shall be heard by the District Judge, Delhi; past decisions of the Administrator shall not be reopened.Final Conclusion: The judgment of the High Court is set aside; Sections 347D (DMC Act) and 256 (NDMC Act) are declared unconstitutional insofar as they vest appellate jurisdiction over Appellate Tribunal decisions in the Administrator. Appeals under those provisions shall, pending constitution of a proper judicial appellate authority, lie to the District Judge, Delhi, with pending appeals transferred accordingly; prior decisions of the Administrator remain undisturbed. The appeal is allowed with no orders as to costs. 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, 1957The 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, 1994Similar 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 AuthorityMr. 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.