The main legal point established in the judgment is that the proceedings under Section 253 of the Act are quasi judicial in nature, and the principle of natural justice should be adhered to as the bare minimum requirement.

Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.

This judgment shall dispose of both the petitions filed against the order passed by learned Appellate Authority (District Judge, Shimla) under the HP Municipal Corporation Act, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ in short in an appeal under Section 253 (2) of the Act, whereby learned Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Shimla has been directed to record the statement of Architect Planner on oath who has submitted the report qua unauthorized construction raised by the respondent herein and to afford the opportunity of cross-examination of the Architect Planner and thereafter to record the statement of the respondent as well as the witnesses to be produced by him on oath and allowing their cross-examination on behalf of the Municipal Corporation and to decide the case thereafter afresh. The case has, therefore, been remanded to learned Commissioner.

2. Mr. Hamender Chandel, learned Counsel representing the petitioner-Municipal Corporation has relied upon the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CMPMO No.51 of 2014, titled Municipal Corporation, Shimla through its Commissioner v. Savitri Devi. In that case also, order passed by learned District Judge was under challenge and the issue brought to this Court by Municipal Corporation for adjudication was also similar. This Court after taking note of all pros and cons and also the scope and ambit of Section 253 of the Act as well as the case law touching the principle of natural justice, has arrived at a conclusion that the proceedings under Section 253 of the Act are quasi judicial in nature and it is only the bare minimum requirement of observance of the principle of natural justice should be adhered. The ratio of this judgment reads as follows:

“82. While exercising his powers, under Section 253 of the Act, Commissioner is not performing ministerial act. Though Commissioner is not a Court, yet the very nature of functions he is discharging are quasi judicial. In view of the non-applicability of provisions of the Evidence Act, Commissioner is to be guided by the settled principles of natural justice. Admissibility of the report of the J.E. was never an issue and it is not that under all circumstances, Commissioner is bound to adduce evidence by first giving oath and have the witness examined or cross examined. Considering the nature of proceedings, on objective assessment, he has to form his opinion, based on the material placed on record by the parties. The report of the J.E. was a document relied upon by the parties and its non admissibility not a relevant issue in the proceedings before him.

83. Thus, for all the aforesaid reasons, order passed by the Appellate Authority cannot be said to be based on settled principles of law. It exceeded its authority and jurisdiction in directing the Commissioner to examine the Officers, on oath, and also afford opportunity of cross-examination to the respondent.

84. No doubt, right to property being a constitutional right needs to be protected and zealously safeguarded and any act which is arbitrary, irrational or illegal, infringing such rights has to be struck down, but then it has to be within the settled and permissible legal sanctions. Ratio laid in A.S. Motors Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is squarely applicable to the given facts.

3. Similar order passed by learned Appellate Authority, Shimla, was also brought to this Court in CMPMO No.64 of 2014, titled Municipal Corporation, Shimla v. Rattan Sharma. This Court on having taken note of the given facts and circumstances and also the ratio of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in A.S. Motors Private Limited v. Union of India and others (2013) 10 SCC 114, has held as follows:

“8. The Commissioner, a quasi judicial authority is not required to sit over the matter and to conduct proceedings like in a case before the Civil Court as the learned Appellate Authority has directed him to do. Therefore, that part of the order, which directs the Commissioner