https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91418 The HC held that the petitioner, acting under Section 23A of the Sand Act, 2001, exercised quasi-judicial powers in ordering the confiscation of vehicles used for illegal transportation. The court applied established criteria to determine that the petitioner's functions involved declaring rights and imposing obligations affecting civil rights, with procedural safeguards including opportunities to present evidence and legal arguments. Given that the statute provided for revision and appeal, the order was classified as quasi-judicial rather than executive or administrative. Consequently, the petitioner was entitled to protection under Sections 2(a) and 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. The FIR alleging illegal exercise of power and collusion was held unsustainable in law. The petition was allowed, quashing the FIR against the petitioner. en-us Sat, 09 Aug 2025 08:48:51 +0530 Sat, 09 Aug 2025 08:48:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91418 The HC held that the petitioner, acting under Section 23A of the Sand Act, 2001, exercised quasi-judicial powers in ordering the confiscation of vehicles used for illegal transportation. The court applied established criteria to determine that the petitioner's functions involved declaring rights and imposing obligations affecting civil rights, with procedural safeguards including opportunities to present evidence and legal arguments. Given that the statute provided for revision and appeal, the order was classified as quasi-judicial rather than executive or administrative. Consequently, the petitioner was entitled to protection under Sections 2(a) and 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. The FIR alleging illegal exercise of power and collusion was held unsustainable in law. The petition was allowed, quashing the FIR against the petitioner. Highlights Indian Laws Sat, 09 Aug 2025 08:48:51 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91418