Dilip B. Bhosale J.

1. The question that falls for our consideration in these appeals is whether the 'power' to cancel a trade licence certificate issued under the provisions of Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, being a quasi judicial in nature, could be delegated by the Commissioner, to the Health Officer, in exercise of the powers of delegation vested in him under section 66 of the said Act?

1.1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 8th of March, 2012 rendered by learned single judge in writ petitions filed by respondents against the order dated 30.4.2011, whereby appellant no.2-Health Officer has cancelled their trade licences for carrying on business at different places in the city of Bangalore.

2. It would suffice to state the common facts of all cases to have a glimpse of the backdrop events in which the question has emerged for decision. The appellant Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short ‘the Corporation'), was established under the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, (for short ‘the KMC Act'). Appellant no.2 - Health Officer (South) is an officer of the Corporation. The respondents, who were petitioners in the writ petitions, are the owners of restaurants / cafes. They were carrying on the business under trade license certificates issued by Health Department of the Corporation. Their licences have been cancelled by the impugned order, since they were found serving hookah in their restaurants / cafes allegedly in contravention of the terms and conditions of the trade licence certificates.

2.1 The business premises of the respondents were raided by the officials of the Corporation, when it was found that they were serving hookah to the customers. The officials of the Corporation seized the hookah apparatus / instruments. The respondents requested the concerned officer of the Corporation to return the seized hookah instruments and since there was no positive response, they filed writ petitions in this Court bearing W.P. Nos.15435-15445/11 seeking direction to the Corporation and its officers restraining them from interfering with their business except in accordance with law. The writ petitions were disposed of vide order dated 21.4.2011 permitting the respondents to make representations to the Commissioner for appropriate relief including return of the seized hookah apparatus. The representations were accordingly made by the respondents to the Commissioner. The representations were, however, considered by respondent no.2 - Health Officer and vide order dated 30.4.2011, he cancelled the trade licences issued in their favour. The hookah apparatus, however, were directed to be returned to the respondents subject to their filing an undertaking that they shall not put them to use within the limits of the Corporation, in any manner. It is in this backdrop, the order cancelling the trade licences were challenged in the writ petitions.

3. The learned single Judge, while dealing with the writ petitions on merits, considered two questions as formulated and reproduced in paragraph 13 of the impugned order. The first question was whether the Commissioner is authorized to delegate the power to cancel the licences when he alone is vested with the said power under the Act?; and second was Whether the second respondent (Health Officer) has authority to cancel the licence as he had issued the licence having regard to section 21 of the Karnataka General Clauses Act, 1899?

3.1 While answering the first question the learned Judge also considered whether the power to cancel trade licences is in the nature of quasi judicial. He answered this question in the affirmative holding that the cancellation of licence could be exercised by the Commissioner alone and this power, being quasi judicial in nature, cannot be delegated either to health officer or any other municipal officer.

3.2 The learned single Judge after recording his findings on both the questions in