Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S.S.Shinde, Prakash D.Naik, Sarang V.Kotwal, JJ.
Mayur Vasant Sonawane - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1578 of 2021
Decided On : 21-04-2022
Sec. 60 - Nature of Orders - Ss. 56, 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 - The power under Sec. 60 of the Act of 1951 is quasi judicial in nature and the orders passed under that Sec. are quasi judicial orders. There is a duty to give reasons, at least in brief, while disposing the appeals under Sec. 60 of the Act of 1951.
Fact of the Case:
The court was called upon to decide whether the power under Sec. 60 of the Act of 1951 is quasi judicial in nature and whether there is a duty to give reasons while disposing the appeal under Sec. 60 of the Act of 1951.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the power under Sec. 60 of the Act of 1951 is quasi judicial in nature and the orders passed under that Sec. are quasi judicial orders. It also held that there is a duty to give reasons, at least in brief, while disposing the appeals under Sec. 60 of the Act of 1951.
Issues: The issues were whether the power under Sec. 60 of the Act of 1951 is quasi judicial in nature and whether there is a duty to give reasons while disposing the appeal under Sec. 60 of the Act of 1951.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the power under Sec. 60 of the Act of 1951 is quasi judicial in nature and the orders passed under that Sec. are quasi judicial orders. It also determined that there is a duty to give reasons, at least in brief, while disposing the appeals under Sec. 60 of the Act of 1951.
Final Decision: The final decision was that the power under Sec. 60 of the Act of 1951 is quasi judicial in nature and the orders passed under that Sec. are quasi judicial orders. The court also ruled that there is a duty to give reasons, at least in brief, while disposing the appeals under Sec. 60 of the Act of 1951.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized with appropriate references:
The power conferred under Sec. 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, is of a quasi-judicial nature, and the orders issued under this section are classified as quasi-judicial orders. (!) (!)
There exists a duty for authorities to provide reasons, at least in brief, while disposing of appeals under Sec. 60 of the Act of 1951. This requirement ensures transparency and accountability in decision-making processes. (!)
The nature of the appellate order under Sec. 60 is distinct from initial externment orders, which are considered administrative and do not require detailed reasons. The appellate authority's role is to objectively assess the material and decide independently, rather than merely confirm or set aside the original order. (!) (!) (!)
The amendments made to Sec. 60 in 1995 introduced the power to remand cases, which underscores the necessity for the appellate authority to provide reasons, at least briefly, to facilitate proper reconsideration. (!) (!)
The requirement to record reasons aligns with broader principles of justice, fairness, transparency, and judicial accountability. Reasons serve to demonstrate that the decision was based on relevant facts and legal considerations, and they support effective judicial review. (!) (!) (!)
The appellate authority must act independently and objectively, considering the material before it without relying solely on subjective satisfaction. The decision-making process involves testing the legality and correctness of the original order based on the material presented. (!) (!)
While confidentiality of material can be maintained, it does not eliminate the obligation to provide reasons. Reasons can be formulated without disclosing sensitive or confidential information, ensuring fairness while respecting privacy concerns. (!) (!)
The principles of giving reasons in quasi-judicial decisions are supported by the broader legal trend emphasizing transparency, fairness, and the rule of law. These principles are essential for maintaining public confidence and ensuring proper judicial oversight. (!) (!)
The overall conclusion is that the power under Sec. 60 is quasi-judicial, and authorities are required to give reasons, at least briefly, in their orders to uphold principles of justice, fairness, and accountability. (!) (!)
Please let me know if you need further elaboration or assistance with specific legal interpretations.
JUDGMENT
1. Pursuant to the reference made by a Division Bench (Coram: Nitin Jamdar and Sarang V. Kotwal, JJ.) vide order dtd. 17/12/2021, we are called upon to decide the following two issues:
(i) Whether the power under Sec. 60 of the Act of 1951 is quasi judicial in nature; and
(ii) Whether there is a duty to give reasons while disposing the appeal under Sec. 60 of the Act of 1951.
The Act referred to in these issues is the 'Maharashtra Police Act, 1951' (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1951').
2. The Division Bench (Coram: Nitin Jamdar and Sarang V. Kotwal, JJ.) who heard this Writ Petition did not agree with the view of another Division Bench (Coram: R.M. Borde and A.I.S. Cheema, JJ.) expressed in the case of Suraj Balbhim Shelke Vs. State of Maharashtra and others 2016(4) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 273, and therefore referred these questions to be decided by a Larger Bench.
Background of Reference :
3. Necessity to decide these issues arose because, depending on whether the order passed under Sec. 60 of the Act of 1951 is quasi judicial or not; the matters challenging the order passed under Sec. 60 of the Act of 1951 could be decided by a Single Judge or a Division Bench. Chapter XVII Rule 18 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 describes the Single Judge's power to finally dispose of the applications under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. In particular, the explanation given under the said Rule is important. The order passed under the Act of 1951 is mentioned at Sr. No.23 under that Rule. The relevant contents of the said Rule are as follows :
"CHAPTER XVII
PETITIONS UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 AND APPLICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 228 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND RULES FOR THE ISSUE OF WRITS AND ORDERS UNDER THE SAID ARTICLES
18. Single Judge's powers to finally dispose of applications under Article 226 or 227.- Notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 1,4 and 17 of this Chapter, applications under Article 226 or under Article 227 of the Constitution (or applications styled as applications under Article 227 of the Constitution read with Article 226 of the Constitution) arising out of-
(1) xxxxx
(2) xxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
(23) The orders passed under the Bombay Police Act, 1951;
xxxxxx xxxxxx
(46) xxxxx may be heard and finally disposed of by a Single Judge appointed in this behalf by the Chief Justice:
xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
Explanation - The expression "order" appearing in clauses (1) to (46) means any order passed by any judicial or quasi judicial authority empowered to adjudicate under the abovementioned statutes."
4. Thus, depending on whether the order under Sec. 60 of the Act of 1951 is passed by a quasi judicial authority or an administrative authority, the matter would lie before a Single Judge or a Division Bench. The judgment in Suraj's case itself was passed on a reference made to that Division Bench for deciding the issue as to whether the order passed by the State Government, in exercise of powers conferred under Sec. 60 of the Act of 1951, confirming the order passed by the externing authority under Ss. 56 and 57 of the Act of 1951 can be construed as an 'order' within the contemplation of explanation to Rule 18 of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960. After discussing various judgments, the Division Bench in that case answered the reference by holding that the authorities i.e. the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be or the State Government, dealing with the appeal against the order of externment, are expected to pass the order, based on the subjective satisfaction of these statutory authorities. It was also held that, the duty to act judicially would be clearly excluded and that the decision would be an administrative decision, as opposed to quasi judicial decision. It was further observed that there was no obligation to record reasons. This obligation can not be imported in Sec. 60 of the Act of 1951 regarding the appellate power
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
