Narendra Kumar vs Bhure Khan and Others

B.S. Chauhan, J.—The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the order passed by the District Collector dated 6.9.2000 and also for quashing the order dated 30.5.2001 passed by the Board of Revenue.

Shri J.L. Purohit, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents Caveator has raised the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition as such particularly in view of the fact that respondent No. 44 cannot be impleaded as a party being a Member of the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan. In support of his submission he has placed reliance upon Section 1 of the Judicial Officer Protection Act, 1850 which reads as under:

No Judge, Magistrate, Justice of the Piece, Collector or other person acting judicially shall be liable to be sued in any civil court for any act done or ordered to be done by him in the discharge of his judicial duty...

It is submitted by him that doctrine of ejusdam generis has to be applied to find out as who are the other persons, acting judicially, covered by it. Protection under this Act is absolute so long the action has been taken while performing the judicial duty; Anowar Hussain Vs. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee and Others, , Rachapudi Subba Rao Vs. Advocate General, Andhra Pradesh, and H.W.F. D''Souza Vs. Chandrika Singh, .

A person may be in judicial service, if he acts outside the scope of his judicial service, he is liable for the consequences; AIR 1987 SC 1469.

Moreso, judicial duty signifies the contradiction from exercise of the administrative or executive duty Anowar Hussain and Another Vs. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee and Others, The term "judicial" extend to the acts and order of a competent authority which has a power to impose the liability or to give a decision determining the rights and liabilities of the parties upon consideration of facts and circumstances. However, it must be an act of a person or persons who have legal authority to determine questions affecting the rights of parties in a judicial manner. Province of Bombay Vs. Kusaldas S. Advani and Others,

A true judicial decision presupposes an existing dispute between two or more parties and then require the following four ingredients:

(a) The presentation of their case by the parties to the dispute;

(b) If the dipsute between them is a question of fact, the ascertainment of the fact by means of evidence adduced by the parties to the dispute and often with the assistance of the argument, by or on behalf of the parties, on. the evidence;

(c) If the dispute between them is a question of law, the submission of legal argument by the parties; and

(d) a decision which disposes of the whole matter by a finding upon the facts in dispute and application of law of the land to the facts so found, including where required, a ruling upon disputed question of law. (Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi v. Employees of Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi AIR 1950 SC 1988 , Maqbool Hussain Vs. The State of Bombay,

The word "judicial office" means a subsisting office with a substantive position which has an existence independent from its holder AIR 1992 SC 1223 ; Statesman (Private) Ltd. Vs. H.R. Deb and Others, and The State of Haryana Vs. The Haryana Cooperative Transport Ltd. and Others,

Whether an act is a judicial or a quasi judicial one or a purely executive one, depends on the terms of the particulars rules and the nature, scope and effect of the particular powers, in exercise of which the act may be done, and would, therefore, depend on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. Where an authority is required to act judicially, either by an express provision of the statute under which it acts or by necessary implication of the said statute, the decision of such an authority generally amount to quasi judicial decision. The Engineering Mazdoor Sabha Representing Workmen Employed Under the Hind Cycles Ltd. and Another Vs. The Hind Cycles Ltd., Bombay, Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd., Meerut Vs. Lakshmichand and Others, and Dhani Ram etc. Vs. Sub-Divisional Judge and Others,

In State of Tamil Nadu Vs. G.N. Venkataswamy and others etc. etc., the Hon''ble Supreme Court considered the scope of the revenue courts and office of Collector and held that it is a court observing that the Collector exercises powers under the Act which has been enacted by the State Legislature. He has been invested with the power to decide the controversy between the parties. There is an existenc of list between the said parties. There is ascertion and denial. The dispute involves rights and obligation of the parties which are decided by the Collector. The Collector has been given the power to deal with the case and even to arrest and detain the person. Thus, all these powers of the Collector are judicial power of the State. The State can exercise the administrative, legislative and judicial power. The Revenue Courts exercise the judicial powers of the State. The Revenue Courts are established in exercise of the powers by the State under entry 11(A) of List-III providing for Administration of Justice and Constitution and Organisation of all courts. While deciding the said case, reliance has been placed upon the judgments in Associated Cement Companies Ltd. Vs. P.N. Sharma and Another, Dev Singh and Others Vs. Registrar, Punjab and Haryana High Court and Others, and State of Bombay Vs. Narothamdas Jethabai and Another,

In view of the preliminary objection raised by Shri Purohit, Shri A.K. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner prays and is permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fresh one.

The petition is dissmissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition. However, Registry is directed to return the certified copy of the orders filed in this petition as Annexures to Shri A.K. Singh to facilitate him to file the fresh petition. No order as to costs.