The function of making a quasi-judicial decision cannot be delegated to another person or authority in the absence of statutory provision authorizing such delegation.

JUDGMENT - Vaidya, J.

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order purporting to be of the Government of Maharashtra communicated to the petitioners Advocate by an officer of the Government described as the Officer on Special Duty, Revenue and Forest Department in respect of an appeal filed by the petitioner before the Government of Maharashtra under Section 2 - A of the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash Grants Act, 1954. By the impugned letter dated February 3, 1967, the Officer on Special Duty informed the petitioners Advocate that the appeal filed by the petitioner on July 20, 1964 was disposed of as per Government memorandum dated February 2, 1967 and a note accompanying thereto.

2. The Government memorandum dated February 2, 1967 is addressed to the Collector of Osmanabad with reference to the appeal filed by the petitioner and proceeds to decide the dispute between the petitioner and opponents Nos. 1 and 2 as to whether opponents Nos. 1 and 2 are Kabiz - e - kadims within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (e) of the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash Grants Act. The memorandum states :-

"Government has given careful consideration to the appeal petition and the arguments which had been advanced by the advocates of the parties in the course of the enquiry made into the appeal petition by the officer on special duty at the instance of Government. It has perused the written arguments of the parties. For the reasons recorded in the enclosed note, Government considers that the appellant has no case and that no modification of the Tahsildars order is called for in so far as the land described as survey number 60 of the village Ashiya is concerned, and that in respect of survey No. 1 of Sankarlal it needs to be declared that on 20th July 1955 as also on 1st July 1960 Rukminibai widow of Ramsing was entitled to hold it as Kabij - e- Kadim along with Kishansing Ptambersing and Umraosing and that the shares of the three holders in the lands were as under, etc. etc.".

The memorandum is signed "by order and in the name of the Governor of Maharashtra" by the Officer on Special Duty, Revenue and Forest Department.

3. The accompanying note is a lengthy note. It gives the checkered history of the litigation between the petitioner and opponents Nos. 1 and 2 since 1897 and the various proceedings before the High Court of Hyderabad and other authorities in the former Hyderabad State and the Revenue Tribunal and this Court. It summarizes the arguments of the Advocates for the parties, who appeared and argued personally and also gave written arguments. There is nothing in the note to indicate as to who prepared the note, but it is not disputed that this note was prepared by the Officer on Special Duty, who heard the Advocates for the parties and recorded the written arguments and other materials before him.

4. The said order memorandum and the note together are challenged in the above petition inter alia on the ground that the deciding authority under Section 2 - A of the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash Grants Act was the Minister, Revenue Department of the Government of Maharashtra and he had not heard the parties before deciding the matter; and further that the learning of the appeal by the Officer on Special Duty in the Revenue and Forest Department was incompetent because he was not the State Government, who alone could decide an appeal under Section 2 - A of the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash Grants Act.

5. As this contention must succeed, it is not necessary for disposal of this petition to set out any other ground or the history of the litigation, which unfortunately commenced in 1897 when Balabai, the predecessor - in - title of the petitioner died. It is enough only to point out that the dispute had once come to this High Court at the instance of opponents Nos. 1, 2 and another as petitioners; and on July 31, 1962 in that matter, which was Special Civil Application No. 1461 of 1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document