Page 256 - ELT_15th July 2020_Vol 373_Part 2

238 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

quasi judicial order. Reference has been made to judgment of Hon’ble the Su-
preme Court in Rai Kumar v. CIT, 2007(2) SCC 181.
13. The issue as to whether any authority is considered as a quasi judi-
cial authority and the decision rendered by it as a quasi judicial decision even in
cases where the lis is not between the two contending parties, but the State on
one side was considered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Indian National Con-
gress (I) v. Institute of Social Welfare, 2002(5) SCC 685. The opinion express was
that wherever statutory authority is to act judicially, its decision is termed as
quasi judicial as the rights between the parties are determined. Relevant paras
thereof are extracted below :-
“20. But there are cases where there is no lis or two contending parties be-
fore a statutory authority yet such a statutory authority has been held to be
quasi-judicial and decision rendered by it as quasi-judicial decision when
such a statutory authority is required to act judicially. In Queen v. Dublin
Corporation, (1878) 2 ILR 371, it was held thus :
“In this connection the term judicial does not necessarily mean acts
of a Judge or legal tribunal sitting for the determination of matters
of law, but for purpose of this question, a judicial act seems to be an
act done by competent authority upon consideration of facts and
circumstances and imposing liability or affecting the rights. And if
there be a body empowered by law to enquire into facts, makes es-
timates to impose a rate on a district, it would seem to me that the
acts of such a body involving such consequence would be judicial
acts.”
21. Atkin L.J. as he then was, in Rex v. Electricity Commissioners, (1924) 1
KB 171 stated that when any body of persons having legal authority to de-
termine questions affecting the rights of subjects and having the duty to act
judicially, such body of persons is a quasi judicial body and decision given
by them is a quasi-judicial decision. In the said decision, there was no con-
test or lis between the two contending parties before the Commissioner. The
Commissioner, after making an enquiry and hearing the objections was re-
quired to pass order. In nutshell, what was held in the aforesaid decision
was, where a statutory authority is empowered to take a decision which af-
fects the rights of persons and such an authority under the relevant law re-
quired to make an enquiry and hear the parties, such authority is quasi ju-
dicial and decision rendered by it is a quasi-judicial act.
22. In Province of Bombay v. Kusaldas S. Advani & Ors. (supra), it was held
thus :
“(i) that if a statute empowers an authority, not being a Court in
the ordinary sense, to decide disputes arising out of a claim
made by one party under the statute which claim is opposed
by another party and to determine the respective rights of the
contesting parties who are opposed to each other, there is a lis
and prima facie and in the absence of anything in the statute to
the contrary it is the duty of the authority to act judicially and
the decision of the authority is a quasi-judicial act; and
(ii) that if a statutory authority has power to do any act which will
prejudicially affect the subject, then, although there are not
two parties apart from the authority and the contest is be-
tween the authority proposing to do the act and the subject

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th July 2020  256