R.M. Borde, J.
1. In this batch of petitions, the petitioners are questioning constitutional validity of Section 184D of the Goa Municipalities Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the âActâ) which provides for a remedy of an appeal to the Government against an order of the Appellate Tribunal, made in an appeal under section 184 confirming, modifying or annulling an order made or notice issued under the Act.
2. All the petitioners were parties to the appeal proceedings presented under Section 184B to the Appellate Tribunal, wherein an order issued under Section 184 of the Act was subject-matter of challenge. On a decision rendered by the Appellate Tribunal under Section 184B, a further appeal is provided under Section 184D of the Act which has been dealt with and disposed of by the Minister for Municipalities, Government of Goa.
3. An appeal against an order issued under Section 184 of the Act is entertainable by the Appellate Tribunal, as provided under Section 184B of the Act. Sub-Section (3) of Section 184B provides that a person shall not be qualified for appointment as the Presiding Officer of an Appellate Tribunal, unless he is, or has been, a District Judge or an Additional District Judge or has, for at least 10 years, held a judicial office in India, or has practiced as an advocate for not less than 10 years in a High Court in India. In terms of provisions of sub-Section (3) of Section 184B, an appeal against an order under Section 184 of the Act is required to be dealt with by a judicial authority. A further appeal has been provided raising challenge to an order of the Appellate Tribunal to the Government, in view of Section 184D of the Act.
4. The petitioners contend that there cannot be an administrative review of the decision taken by a judicial or quasi-judicial authority which has trappings of a Court. It is, thus, contended that an appeal, as provided under Section 184D to the State Government as against an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal under Section 184B of the Act, which matter is required to be dealt with by a judicial authority, is not entertainable and the relevant provision i.e. section 184D of the Act providing for an appeal to the executive, against an order passed by a judicial authority, is unconstitutional.
5. There cannot be any two opinions as regards the proposition put forward by the petitioners. It would be impermissible to have administrative review of a decision taken by a judicial or quasi-judicial authority which has trappings of a Court. In the instant matter, Presiding Officer of the Appellate Tribunal, as provided under section 184B of the Act, is a person who has been a District Judge or an Additional District Judge or has, for at least 10 years, held a judicial office in India. The appeal under Section 184B provided to the Appellate Tribunal is dealt with by a judicial authority which has trappings of a Court. There cannot be any further appeal to an administrative authority and such an administrative authority cannot be considered competent to hold administrative review of a decision taken by the judicial authority and providing for such a mechanism could be against the scheme of the Constitution.
6. In order to substantiate this aforesaid contention, reliance is placed on a judgment in the matter of AmrikSingh Lyallpuri vs. Union of India and ors., reported in (2011) 6 SCC 535. In the reported matter, constitutional validity of Section 347-D of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 was called in question. Under the scheme of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 a judicial authority was provided to man the Appellate Tribunal in terms of sub-Sections (1) and (2) of Section 347-A of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act for deciding appeals preferred under Section 343 or Section 347B of the said Act. A further appeal against decision of the Appellate Tribunal was provided before the Administrator of Delhi i.e. Lieutenant Governor under Section 347D of the said Act. An objection was raised to the constitutional validity of Section 347D of the said Act on the ground that when an appeal is decided by an authority which is manned by a Judge of the Civil Court, an appeal from the decision of such authority cannot be heard by an executive authority, however high such executive authority may be. While dealing with the issue, the Honourable Supreme Court in paragraph 17 of the Judgment has observed thus :
â17. In a subsequent Constitution Bench decision of this Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261, Ahmadi, C.J. after an analysis of different decisions of this Court, affirmatively held that judicial review is one of the basic features of our Constitution. Such a finding of this Court, obviously means that there cannot be an administrative review of a decision taken by a judicial or a quasi-judicial authority which has the trappings of a court. Since judicial review has been considered an intrinsic part of constitutionalism, any statutory provision which provides for administrative review of a decision taken by a judicial or a quasi-judicial body is, therefore, inconsistent with the aforesaid postulate and is unconstitutional.â
Following the precedent referred to above, the provisions of Section 184D of the Goa Municipalities Act, 1968 shall also have to be declared as unconstitutional.
7. The learned Advocate General appearing for the State has not seriously controverted the proposition of law and has further informed that necessary steps have already been taken for initiating appropriate amendment in the Act of 1968. It is further contended that an appropriate appellate forum would be provided in observance of the principles of law for taking review of the decisions of the Appellate Tribunal under Section 184B of the Act. It is also informed that the State Government would provide for an alternate forum to deal with the appeals against decisions of the Appellate Tribunal, within a period of three months from today. The decisions rendered by the State Government in exercise of powers under Section 184D of the Act shall have to be quashed and set aside, consequent upon a declaration that Section 184D of the Act of 1968 is unconstitutional and, as such, are struck down.
8. The orders impugned in all these petitions, passed by the government in exercise of powers under Section 184D of the Act, are quashed and set aside and the appeals arising out of the decision of the Appellate Tribunal under Section 184B of the Act and the proceedings arising out of the decision of the Appellate Tribunal under Section 184B of the Act shall be forwarded to the Appellate Authority which would be created by the State Government. The Appellate Authority, on its formation, shall deal with the appeals in accordance with law. The parties to the petitions shall maintain status quo for a period until forwarding of the appeal proceedings to the Appellate Forum that would be created by the State Government for taking review of the decision of the Appellate Tribunal under Section 184B of the Act and for a further period of one month from the date of such transfer of the matters. It would be open for the Appellate forum that would come into existence, to consider the request of the parties for continuation or otherwise of the interim orders.
9. Rule is made accordingly absolute. There shall be no order as to costs.