Page 257 - ELT_15th July 2020_Vol 373_Part 2

2020 ] COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX v. GAURAV PHARMA LTD. 239

opposing it, the final determination of the authority will yet be
a quasi-judicial act provided the authority is required by the
statute to act judicially.
In other words, while the presence of two parties besides the
deciding authority will prima facie and in the absence of any
other factor impose upon the authority the duty to act judicial-
ly, the absence of two such parties is not decisive in taking the
act of the authority out of the category of quasi-judicial act if
the authority is nevertheless required by the statute to act ju-
dicially.”
23. The legal principles laying down when an act of a statutory authority
would be a quasi-judicial act, which emerge from the aforestated decisions
are these :
Where (a) a statutory authority empowered under a statute to do
any act (b) which would prejudicially affect the subject (c) although
there is no lis or two contending parties and the contest is between
the authority and the subject and (d) the statutory authority is re-
quired to act judicially under the statute, the decision of the said au-
thority is quasi-judicial.
24. Applying the aforesaid principle, we are of the view that the presence of a lis
or contest between the contending parties before a statutory authority, in the ab-
sence of any other attributes of a quasi-judicial authority is sufficient to hold that
such a statutory authority is quasi-judicial authority. However, in the absence of a
lis before a statutory authority, the authority would be quasi-judicial authority if it
is required to act judicially.
25. Coming to the second argument of Learned Counsel for the respond-
ent, it is true that mere presence of one or two attributes of quasi-judicial
authority would not make an administrative act as quasi-judicial act. In
some case, an administrative authority may determine question of fact be-
fore arriving at a decision which may affect the right of an appellant but
such a decision would not be quasi-judicial act. It is different thing that in
some cases fair-play may demand affording of an opportunity to the claim-
ant whose right is going to be affected by the act of the administrative au-
thority, still such an administrative authority would not be quasi-judicial
authority.
26. What distinguishes an administrative act from quasi-judicial act is, in the
case of quasi-judicial functions under the relevant law the statutory authority is re-
quired to act judicially. In other words, where law requires that an authority before
arriving at decision must make an enquiry, such a requirement of law makes the
authority a quasi-judicial authority.
27. Learned Counsel for the respondent then contended that a quasi-
judicial function is an administrative function which the law requires to be
exercised in some respects as if it were judicial and in that view of the mat-
ter, the function discharged by the Election Commission under Section 29A
of the Act is totally administrative in nature. Learned Counsel in support of
his argument relied upon the following passage from Wade & Forsyth’s
Administrative Law :
“A quasi-judicial function is an administrative function which the
law requires to be exercised in some respects as if it were judicial. A
typical example is a minister deciding whether or not to confirm a
compulsory purchase order or to allow a planning appeal after a
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th July 2020  257