A quasi-judicial authority cannot review its own order without specific statutory power of review.

( 1 ) THE authority to exercise the power of review in respect of sanction of prosecution under section 19 (1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the Act) has given rise to the present petition.

( 2 ) THE petitioner joined respondent No. 1, Delhi Energy Development Agency in February, 1981 and was promoted as an Administrative Officer in 1991. On 18. 2. 96 an FIR was registered against Sh. C. S. Khairwal, the then Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Surface transport. The petitioner was also arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation and since she remained in custody for more than 48 hours the petitioner was placed under suspension in accordance with CCS (CCA) Rules. The petitioner challenged the action against her and was reinstated by an order dated 25. 7. 97 in CW 1818/97.

( 3 ) ON 26. 2. 98 an FIR was filed against the petitioner for disproportionate assets. A request was made for sanction of prosecution under section 19 (1) (c) of the said Act but the same was declined by the competent authority vide orders dated 29. 11. 99 and 15. 3. 2000. Request was again made by the CBI for reconsideration of the matter but the same was declined vide order dated 5. 2. 2001 on the ground that the competent authority had no power to review its decision. The CBI continued to make requests by subsequent letters dated 21. 6. 2001, 17. 7. 2001 and 24. 9. 2001. Finally the sanction was granted by the order dated 31. 10. 2001.

( 4 ) THE petitioner aggrieved by the said order of sanction dated 31. 10. 2001 has filed the present petition for quashing the said decision.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that the competent authority once having applied its mind to the facts of the case and having declined to sanction prosecution was vested with no jurisdiction to review its earlier decision. It is contended that the request of CBI was repeatedly declined including by Sh. Rahul Khullar, who subsequently took the impugned decision to review the order

( 6 ) MR. K. C. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that unless the power of review is specifically conferred no review can be made and thus the subsequent impugned decision is without jurisdiction and null and void It has also been contended that the decision to review itself was arbitrary, illegal, unfair and unjustified.

( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in dr. (Smt-) Kuntesh Gupta Vs Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur 1987 (4) SCC 525 The Supreme Court was concerned with the exercise of powers by the Vice chancellor under the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 and held that a quasi- judicial authority cannot review its own order unless power of review is expressly conferred on it by the statute under which it derives its jurisdiction Since the provisions of the UP Act or the Statutes of the Universities do not confer any power of review with Vice Chancellor it was held that the exercise of the power to review by the VC was without Jurisdiction and thus a nullty.

( 8 ) MR. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner, also relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this court in Dhanpatmal Virmani Senior Secondary School and another vs. Shri j. D. Kapoor and others in LPA 498/98 decided on 1922001. The Division Bench was concerned with the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and the rules framed thereunder. The director of Education declined to grant approval for removal of an employee under rule 120 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 On being asked to reconsider/review its decision the Director of Education reviewed the order of his predecessor. The Single Judge of this court held that the power of review must be provided in the Statute and in the absence of the same quashed the decision taken by the Director of Education while reviewing its earlier order The management of the School contended before the Division Bench that the order of the Directo