LI Network
Published on: January 8, 2024 at 16:10 IST
The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently established that quasi-judicial authorities lack the authority to appeal, review, or revise their own orders.
In a case where the State challenged the Financial Commissioner’s decision affirming the Divisional Commissioner’s reversal of the District Collector’s ruling in Section 118 proceedings under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act of 1972, the Court dismissed the State’s petition.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel observed that unlike a complainant, a quasi-judicial authority must act impartially and decide on the matter at hand. Once a case is decided, the authority becomes functus officio, devoid of the power to file an appeal, review, or revision against its own order. The authority cannot claim aggrieved status, leaving the responsibility to challenge the order to the affected party.
The case arose from proceedings initiated under Section 118 of the Act against the Respondents based on a complaint. Initially ruled against by the District Collector, the Respondents filed an Appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, who overturned the initial order. The State then filed a Revision before the Financial Commissioner, who upheld the Divisional Commissioner’s decision.
The High Court questioned the maintainability of the writ petition filed by the State through the District Collector, a statutory quasi-judicial authority responsible for the initial adjudication.
The Court emphasized the inconsistency of such an authority contesting subsequent adjudications that reversed its own decision.
Highlighting that the District Collector’s order merged with subsequent appellate orders, the Court pointed out that the quasi-judicial authority loses the power to contest its own decision once an appeal is filed against it.
The authority becomes bound by the appellate decision. Similarly, in the case of the Financial Commissioner’s decision, the District Collector’s and Divisional Commissioner’s orders merged into the Financial Commissioner’s order.
During the hearing, the Court found no procedural infirmities in the adjudication of the appeal and revision. As a result, the Court concluded that the impugned orders did not warrant interference through judicial review.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the Petition.