As it deems fit Advocates Act, 1961, Ss. 37,38 The question is what is the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction of a quasi-judicial authority whose jurisdiction is defined in such terms as ‘as it deems fit’? Undoubtedly, this expression ‘as it deems fit’ confers a jurisdiction of widest amplitude on the quasi judicial tribunal. But that does not mean that such tribunal can pass any order in total disregard of the statutory provisions under which the quasi-judicial tribunal is created and is conferred jurisdiction to resolve disputes arising in the implementation of the statute. A similar expression in S. 29(3) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 was construed in Raja Ram Mahadev Paranjype v. Aba Maruti Mali, 1962 Supp 1 SCR 739,746 : AIR 1962 753 : 64 Bom LR 569 by this Court not to confer power to make any order that the authority concerned thinks in his individual opinion that the justice of the case requires. Referring to R v. Boteler, (1864) 33 LJMC 101 : 12 WR 466 : 122 ER 718 it was observed that the discretion conferred by the provision would not permit to say that the law, as it stands, is unjust and the Court will not carry out the same and that no Court can omit or decline to discharge a duty according to law. In other words, the discretionary jurisdiction has to be exercised keeping in view the purpose for which it is conferred, the object sought to be achieved and the reasons for granting such wide discretion. Further while examining the scope of jurisdiction conferred by such words ‘as it deems fit’ the only limitation this Court found in exercise of jurisdiction is that ‘wide as the power may be, the order must be germane to the Act and its purposes, and latitude cannot transcend those limits’. See V.L. Rangadurai v. D. Gopalan, AIR 1979 SC 281. (Nardnera Singh v. Chhotey Singh, (1983) 4 SCC 131 (138,139)