Back
1973 Supreme(AP) 53
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : GOPALRAO EKBOLE, V.MADHAVA RAO
Gajjala Papireddi - Appellant
Versus
Government Of A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 04-05-73
The government cannot constitute itself as an appellate or revisory authority to hear an appeal or revision against the order of its delegate.
Headnote:
DELEGATION OF STATUTORY POWERS - DELEGATION OF STATUTORY ADMINISTRATIVE POWER - GOVERNMENT CANNOT CONSTITUTE ITSELF AS APPELLATE OR REVISORY AUTHORITY - RULE PROVIDING FOR REVISION AGAINST ORDER OF DELEGATE IS ULTRA VIRES - ESTATES ABOLITION ACT, 1948 (ACT XXVI OF 1948), SEC. 67(1), 67(2)(C).
Fact of the Case:
The government delegated its power under the proviso to Section 11 of the Estates Abolition Act, 1948 to the Board of Revenue. The Board passed an order under the proviso to Section 11. The respondents filed a revision to the government against the order of the Board. The government passed the impugned order in revision. The petitioners challenged the impugned order on the ground that the government could not hear revision against the order of its delegate.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the government cannot constitute itself as an appellate or revisory authority to hear an appeal or revision against the order of its delegate. The decision of the Supreme Court and of this High Court referred to above which dealt with the delegation of quasi-judicial power would equally apply to cases, as here, relating to the delegation of the statutory executive powers.
Issues: Whether the government can constitute itself as an appellate or revisory authority to hear an appeal or revision against the order of its delegate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the principle that when a quasi-judicial power vested in an authority is delegated to other subordinate authority, the delegating authority cannot hear appeal or revision against the order or act of his delegate is applicable to the delegation of a statutory administrative power. The court held that the government cannot constitute itself as an appellate or revisory authority to hear an appeal or revision against the order of its delegate. The court also held that the rule providing for revision against the order of the delegate is ultra vires of Section 67(1) of the Estates Abolition Act, 1948.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the lower court, allowed the writ petition, and quashed the impugned order of the government by issue of a writ of certiorari.
( 2 ) THE Assistant Settlement Officer, Chitoor held inquiry under section 11 of the Act and submitted a report to the Board of Revenue recommending that the patta of the land in question be granted to the petitioners under the proviso to section 11 of the Act. The Board or revenue, however, on 16-11-1957 directed the Assistant Settlement officer to hold enquiry under Section 11 (a ).
( 3 ) THE Assistant Settlement Officer after holding such enquiry by his order dated 5-7-1959 held that the petitioners predecessors were entitled to a ryotwari patta under Section 11 (a ). Aggrieved by that order, respondents 3 and 7 preferred a revision to the Settlement Officer. While the said revision was pending, the Board of Revenue on 9-9-1959 directed the patta to be granted to the petitioners father under the proviso to section 11.
( 4 ) IN view of the above said order of the Board of Revenue, the settlement Officer dismissed the revision filed by respondents 3 and 7. The said respondents then went in revision to the Director of Settlements. That petition also was dismissed on 19-12-1960. A further revision to the Board of Revenue filed by respondents 3 and 7 is pending before the Board of Kevenue.
( 5 ) COMING back to the order passad by the Board on 9-1-1959 under the proviso to Section 11, the respondents preferred a revision to the Government on 7-3-1961. After the notice and opportunity of filing explanation, the Government passed the impugned order in G. O. Ms. No. 581 dated 28-5-1968.
( 6 ) BEFORE the learned Judge, three contentions were raised. We are, however, concerned in this appeal mainly with one contention. It was argued that the Board of Revenue as a delegate of the government passed the impugned order under the proviso to section 11 of the act. No revision therefore could be heard by the Government who had delegate its powers under the said proviso to the Board of revenue.
( 7 ) THE learned Judge rejected this contention by holding that the power exercisable under the proviso to section 11 is of an administrative character and though such power is delegated under the rules to the Board of Revenue, the Government may make a rule providing for a revision against the order of its delegate. Consequently under such a rule, the Government can validly hear revision against the order of its delegate. The impugned order therefore is valid and made within the jurisdiction oi the Government. It is this view that is questioned in this appeal.
( 8 ) NOW it is not at all in doubt that if in pursuance of power to delegate a statutory quasi-judicial power, the delegator entrusts the power to exercise such a quasi-judicial power to his delegate, he must be deemed to have parted with the power, until of course it is resumed or cancelled. In such cases the decision of the delegate is held to be really the decision of the delegator. Consequently he cannot hear appeal or revision against the order of his delegate, This position of law when quasi-judicial powers are delegated has been laid down in the following cases : Gangappa v. State of Madras, P. Munilaxmamma v. State of A. P. Rukmini Devi v Settlement Officer, writ petition No, 2682 of 1961 dated 14-7-1971; Himayatnagar Rate payers association v. Commisioner, Municipal Corporation Hyderabad and Roopchand v, State of Punjab. So far as that posi
