TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 660
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 2160/2016 & CM Appl. 9230/2016 W.P.(C) 2174/2016 & CM Appl. 9312/2016 1. Present writ petitions have been filed seeking a direction to respondent No.1-Director General of Foreign Trade, not to proceed with the cases under Section 16 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1992"). 2. In the petitions, it has been averred that the respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction to decide the review applications filed at the instance of DRI. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners states that Section 16 of the Act, 1992 does not confer the power of review in individual cases which have been passed by adjudicating authorities and which are su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al or not has to be contextualized in the overall setting of the provision. DDA in its myriad functions, as policy maker, town planner, agency for implementation of housing and other building policies, is obliged to decide various issues. Most of these are not judicial, or quasi judicial; they are certainly administrative in nature and require application of mind to the relevant considerations. Thus, for instance, if the DDA has to decide whether a class of services ought to be permitted within a residential locality, it would have to first see the relevant provisions of the Master Plan; it would also consider the impact of its decisions, on the amenities existing in the area, and the likely additional pressures which they would be subjecte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Central Government can reverse decisions of DDA, in pending or closed cases. In such an eventuality, the DDA would be the "aggrieved party" so to speak. If the logic of a dispute, to be decided by the Central Government in a "quasi judicial" capacity is to be accepted, it would lead to startling results. Town planning would be chaotic, and paralysed; every decision of the DDA, which implicates "a case" would be reviewable under Section 41 (3) and the DDA as well as the concerned party would have to be heard; the Central Government would then have to issue detailed reasoned orders. This would bog the entire process of planning and implementation of the Master and other plans in a modern, and efficient manner - a result surely not intended b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al orders also inasmuch as it states that the reviewing authority may "call for and examine the records of any proceedings". The said expression is missing in Section 41 of the DDA Act, 1957. 7. Further, the judgment in Samir Kohli (supra) is clearly inapplicable to the facts of the present case as it deals with Section 41 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957, which is not pari materia to the present case. In any event, the scheme of Delhi Development Act, 1957 (for short "DDA Act, 1957"), is entirely different from the Act, 1992. 8. In fact, the Supreme Court in Union of India and Others Vs. Dhanwanti Devi and Others, (1996) 6 SCC 44 has held as under:- "10. Therefore, in order to understand and appreciate the binding force of a dec....