JUDGMENT

Santosh Hegde, J.-Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Leave granted.

2. The question involved in this appeal revolves around a narrow compass that is, does an order made by the Minister for State (Excise), Govt. of Maharashtra in a revision petition under Section 34 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (the Act) require authentication under Article 166 of the Constitution of India? The High Court of Judicature, Bombay at Aurangabad in a writ petition filed by the first respondent herein has held that it is necessary.

3. The question, therefore, for our consideration is whether a quasi-judicial order made under the provisions of a statute by a revisional authority who is also a Minister in the State Cabinet, require authentication under Article 166.

4. It is an admitted fact that the order made by the Minister concerned was on a revision petition filed against the order of the Commissioner of Excise who himself was entertaining a petition before him under the provisions of the Act sitting as a quasi-judicial authority. It is also an undisputed fact that executive authorities also, if so empowered under a statute, exercise quasi-judicial powers. Such powers when exercised by an