( 1 ) THE point for decision in these two cases under Article 226 of the Constitution is whether the Appellate Authority under Rule 13 of the West Bengal Panchayat Rules, 1958, has to act in a quasi-judicial capacity, in disposing of the appeal and, if so, the petitioner in the two cases are entitled to the relief claimed.

( 2 ) THE petitioners are voters for election to the Aanchal Panchayat of two areas respectively, namely, Bakra and Salap Anchal Panchyat. The nomination papers submitted by the petitioners under Rule 10 (1) of the said Rules, were however, defective and were, accordingly, rejected by the Returning Officer (O. P. No. 2), contending that the defect in question was not of a 'character within the meaning of Rule 10 (3), proviso. The petitioners took an appeal to the District Panchayat Officer (O. P. No. 3) under the provisions of Rule 13, on the ground that their names were wrongly omitted from the list. The provisions of Rule 13 may profitably be reproduced at once :"if any person who has filed a nomination paper under sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 finds that his name is not included in the list of candidates published under sub-rule (6) of Rule 10 by the Returning Officer or if any person who filed a nomination paper disputes the right of any other candidate to be on such list, such person may appeal to the District Panchayat Officer in writing not less than 26 days before the election day. The District Panchayat Officer shall forward a copy of his order passed on appeal to Returning Officer so as to reach him not less than 16 days before the election day, and the Returning Officer when so directed by the District Panchayat Officer shall, on receipt of the order, amend the list, note upon it the date of such amendment and forthwith publish at the office of the Gram Panchayat or Anchal Panchayat, if any, or at some other conspicuous places the amendments made in the list. "

( 3 ) THE petitioners' grievance is that the Appellate Authority rejected their appeal without hearing the petitioners and even without issuing a notice of any hearing to them. The opposite parties do not say that O. P. No. 3 did issue such notice but contend that he was not required to do any such thing under the provisions of Rule 13.

( 4 ) IT has been vehemently argued by the learned Government Pleader, on behalf of opposite parties, that it was an administrative appeal and that since the relevant statutory provisions do not require any hearing the Appellate Authority or to take any other steps in that behalf.

( 5 ) IT is patent that the Rule itself does not impose any quasi-judicial obligation nor require any compliance with the rules of natural justice but that is not conclusive of the matter. In my recent judgment in C. R. No. 461 of 1966 before the Division Bench, I have stated how, starting from the narrow view in Province of Bombay v. Kusal Das, 1950 SCR 621, that the exclusive source of quasi-judicial obligation was the express provisions of the relevant statute our Supreme Court has been proceeding towards the other extreme, namely, that even where the relevant statutory provision is silent, a quasi-judicial obligation may still be inferred from the nature of the function itself, the rights of the parties affected and the like. The authorities, - both English and Indian, - to be cited just now, demonstrate that so far as the appellate function is concerned, even when such function is vested in an administrative authority, the nature of the function itself would require a hearing, according to the rules of natural justice.

( 6 ) THE learned Government Pleader referred to the recent English decision in Wednesbury Corporation v. Ministry of Housing and Local Government, (1965) 3 WLR 956, in support of the proposition that there was no quasi-judicial obligation in the absence of a statutory direction to that effect. That case, however, relates to the provision relating to a local inquiry under Section 23 of the Local Government Act, 19

Click Here to Read the rest of this document