BIND BASNI PRASAD, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution by one Mrs. A. Cracknell directed against the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Collector of Meerut and the Court of Wards arising under the following circumstances.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is the owner of what was formerly known as Dasna estate comprising of about twenty three thousand bighas in the district of Meerut spread over nine villages. Her complaint is that

"without any notice, warning or any opportunity to show cause, and without any hearing or any reference of any kind whatsoever to the petitioner, the Court of Wards, at the instance of the collector, Meerut, assumed superintendence of her estate on the morning of 5th September, 1951. "

The notification dated 10-9-1951 published in the U. P. Gazette dated 15-9-1951 in Part I-A at page 601 shows that the superintendence of the estate has been taken over under Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 8, U. P. Court of Wards Act, 1912. The petitioners suggestion is that her mother Mrs. A Coppinger is against her, as she wanted the petitioner to be her "unpaid companion, house-keeper and manager" and was opposed to the petitioners marriage to anyone, and when the petitioner married, the relations between the two became strained and she turned against the petitioners husband also, "who, to her way of thinking was the cause of the deprivation of the comfort and the personal services of the petitioner in her old age. " There has been litigation between the mother on the one hand and the daughter and son-in-law on the other and it is suggested that the Collector was friendly with the mother.

( 3 ) THE reliefs claimed are:

" (i) a direction, order, or writ, in the nature of a writ of certiorari be issued against the opposite parties requiring them to produce the records of the proceedings relating to the petitioners estate and after perusal thereof the proceedings and orders of the opposite parties be quashed; (ii) an interim direction, order or writ be issued against the opposite parties requiring them to restore the management of the petitioners estate to her in the meanwhile. "

( 4 ) WHEN the petition came up for hearing before a Division Bench, notice was ordered to be issued, but the interim direction was refused.

( 5 ) A preliminary objection has been taken by Shri Gopalji Mehrotra, learned Standing Counsel, on the ground that the action taken by the opposite parties under Section 8 (1) (b), or under section 12, U. P. Court of Wards Act, 1912 was not of a judicial or quasi-judicial nature and as such no writ of certiorari can be issued, as prayed.

( 6 ) IN the case of avadesh PRATAP SIN-GH V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, AIR 1952 all 63, after review of authorities, Agarwala, J. observed:

"upon a consideration of the whole matter, it appears to me that a quasi-judicial act requires that a decision is to be given not arbitrarily or in the mere discretion of an authority, but according to the facts and circumstances of the case, as determined upon an enquiry held by the authority after giving an opportunity to the party to be affected of Being heard and whenever necessary leading evidence in support of his contentions. Whenever the authority is bound to make a decision in this way, it acts judicially or quasi-judicially. The essential difference between an administrative or executive act on the one hand and a judicial and quasi-judicial act on the other is that while in the former case, the authority vested with the power to give a decision affecting the rights of others, may be bound to enter upon an enquiry, he is not bound to give a decision as a result of the enquiry, but may act in his discretion, in utter disregard of the result of the enquiry, in the latter case, such authority is bound by law to act on the facts and circumstances, as determined upon the enquiry, in which a person to be affected is given full opportunity to place his case before the authority, even though the decision of such a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document