1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.58 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.608 OF 2008. (GAJANANRAO GOPALRAO PUNDKAR Vs SPECIAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER RURAL DEVELOOPMENT & OTH....) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders __________________________________________________________________________________________ ____ Shri R.L.Khapre, Advocate for Appellant. Shri K.S.Dhote, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 & 3. Shri Gopal Mishra, Advocate for Respondent No.4. Shrr P.C. Madkholkar, Advocate for Respondent No.5. CORAM : K.J.ROHEE & R.C.CHAVAN, JJ. DATED : MARCH 12, 2008. 1. Heard learned Advocate Shri R.L. Khapre for the appellant, learned A.G.P. Shri K.S.Dhote for respondent Nos. 1 & 3, learned Advocate Shri Gopal Mishra for respondent No.4 and learned Advocate Shri P.C. Madkholkar for respondent No.5. 2. One Baliram Ramkrishna Shirsat was the Vice President of Zilla Parishad, Akola and was also the chairman of Health and Works Committees. After his death the appellant was elected as Vice President. By 2 order dated 31st December, 2007 Deputy Chief Executive Officer (General Administration), Zilla Parishad, Akola directed that the charge of the chairman of Health and Works Committees be handed over to the appellant. It seems that the said order was challenged by a councilor of Zilla Parishad, Akola by preferring an application under Section 82(3) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “Z.P. Act”) before the Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati. During pendency of the said application by communication dated 06.02.2008 the Officer on Special Duty of Government of Maharashtra informed the Chief Officer, Zilla Parishad, Akola that the order of the Deputy Chief Officer dated 31st December, 2007 was cancelled. It was further directed that meeting of the Parishad as required under Section 83(2) of the said Act should be convened for electing the chairmen of Health and Works Committees. The appellant challenged the said communication by preferring writ petition which came 3 up before the learned Single Judge. After hearing the parties the learned Single Judge opined that the impugned order dated 06.02.2008 was not in exercise of quasi judicial powers and as such the writ petition could not be entertained by the single Judge. The learned Single Judge held that the matter pertains to Division Bench and directed that it be placed accordingly. The said order is challenged in the present Letters Patent appeal. 3. It was vehemently urged by Shri Madkholkar, the learned counsel for Respondent No.5 that the order of the learned single Judge dated 20th February, 2008 is not a judgment within the meaning of Letters Patent and as such the Letters Patent appeal is not tenable. Shri Khapre, the learned counsel for the appellant, on the other hand submitted that by the impugned order the learned single Judge has held that the single Judge cannot entertain the writ petition and that it pertains to the Division Bench. As such it has finally concluded the 4 matter before the learned Single Judge by ruling out the right to approach the single Judge and hence, it is the judgment and that the Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable. 4. We find considerable force in the submission made by Shri Khapre. It may be noted that the right of the appellant to approach single Bench has been finally decided by the learned Single Judge against the appellant. Hence, we hold that the impugned order dated 20.02.2008 is a judgment and that the Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable. 5. The main thrust of Shri Khapre, the learned counsel for the appellant, is on the finding of the learned single Judge that the order dated 8th February, 2008 passed by the State Government is not in exercise of a quasi judicial power. According to Shri Khapre, the order of the State Government is by a quasi-judicial authority. 5 6. In order to highlight his submission Shri Khapre took us through various provisions of the Zilla Parishad Act and urged that the appellant having been elected as Vice President of the Zilla Parishad has a right to hold the post as Chairman of two subject committees, the order passed by the State Government has civil consequences of depriving the appellant of his right to hold those posts. Hence, the impugned order is quasi judicial order and that under Rule 18(3) of Chapter XVII of the Appellate Side Rules the learned single Judge was empowered to entertain the writ petition. 7. The test to determine as to what is administrative act and what is quasi judicial act has been laid down in Indian National Congress (I) Vs. Institute of Social Welfare and others, (AIR 2002 SC 2158) on which Shri Khapre, the learned counsel for the appellant, heavily relied. He also relied on some decisions in order to show that the impugned order 6 passed by the State Government is in the nature of quasi judicial order. 8. Shri Madkholkar, the learned counsel for respondent No.5, on the other hand, relies on sub- section (2) of Section 83 of the Z.P. Act in order to demonstrate that the appellant cannot claim to be the Chairman of Health and Works Committees only because his predecessor was holding this post. According to Shri Madkholkar, it is for the councilors to elect Chairmen of the subject committees and for that purpose a meeting of the Zilla Parishad has to be convened by the Collector to be presided over either by the Collector himself or such officer not below the rank of Deputy Collector as the Collector may appoint. It was further urged by Shri Madkholkar that the order of the Deputy Chief Executive Officer dated 31st December, 2007 is per se illegal inasmuch as, the Deputy Chief Officer is not empowered by any of the provisions of the Z. P. Act to direct that the charge of the Chairman of 7 subject committee should be given to the Vice President. As such it cannot be said that the impugned order passed by the Officer on Special Duty is in exercise of quasi judicial power. It is a mere correction by the Government in its supervisory powers of a patent error. 9. We find considerable force in these submissions. It prima facie appears that for want of jurisdiction to do so by the order of Deputy Chief Executive Officer the appellant is not clothed with any civil rights and the impugned order passed by the State Government will have no civil consequences rendering the order to be quasi judicial order. It seems that it is purely an administrative order and as such the learned single Judge rightly held that he can not entertain the writ petition. We may not be taken to have expressed ourselves on the merits of the matter. 10. We, therefore, dismiss the Letters Patent 8 Appeal. 11. On the request of the learned counsel for the appellant the interim order passed by this Court on 26.02.2008 is continued for two weeks to enable the appellant to approach the Division Bench. JUDGE JUDGE RR.