s^^^^s HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: B1LASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK, CJ .PET1TIONERS RESPONDENTS t^ W.P. (ON0.3821 OF 2006 1. Vijay Kumar Agrawal, Aged 55 years, S/o Taraehand Agrawal 2. Ajay Kumar Agrawal, Aged 50 years, S/o Tarachand Agrawal 3. SanjayKumar Agrawal, Aged 45 years, S/o Tarachand Agrawal 4. Abhay Kumar Agrawal, Aged 42 years, S/o Tarachand Agrawal 5. Krishna Kumar Agrawal, Aged 40 years, S/o Tarachand Agrawal All above are resident of Gaddipara, Ambikapur, DistrictSurguja (CG) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Secretary, Revenue Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur(Chhattisgarh) 2. The Collector, Ambikapur, Surguja, District Surguja (CG) 3. Ku. Nirusha Agrawal, D/o Ramesh Chandra, Agrawal, Aged about 29 years, R/o Vldyanagar, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) 4. Kailash Kumar Budhiya, S/o Rameshwar Prasad Budhiya, Aged about 52 years, R/o Sadar Road, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) 6. Anil Kumar Agrawal, Aged about 45 years, Bajranglal Agrawat, R/o Jawahar MarketAmbikapur, Distt. Surguja (CG) 7. Government P.G.College, Ambikapur, Through: its Principat, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) -2.- L ti 1 B i 8. Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh Bilaspur, Through : its President, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG) Present: ShriManojParanjpe, learnedcounselforthepetitioners. Shri Utkarsh Verma, learned Dy. G.A. for the State. ORAL ORDER {Passed on 28"1 July, 2006) !n this writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the validity of the orders of the Collector, Ambikapur district Surguja, the 2 respondent herein, dated 17-07-2006 and 01-06-2006, passed in Second Appeai No. 1/A-6/2004-05, in case of Kumari Nirusha Agrawai Vs. Govt. P.G. Coliege, Ambikapur & others. The 2 respondent on an application made by the respondent No. 3 herein, under Section 30 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code 1959 (for short "the Code"), passed the order on 01-06-20W withdrawing Second Appeal No. 1/A- 6/2004-05 from the fi!e of Additional Collector, Ambikapur to his file for hearing and disposal of the same. The petitioners herein who are the main contesting parties in the Second Appeal No. 1/A-6/2004-05 moved an app!ication on 26-06-2006 before the 2 respondent when they came So know about the order made by the 2 respondent on 01-06- 2006 requesting the 2nd respondent to recall his order dated 01-06-2006 and hear the application filed by the 3 respondent cte novo and pass appropriate order. The said application was also rejected by the 2 respondent on 17-07-2006. It appears that feeiing aggrieved by the above orders ofthe 2nd respondent dated 01-06-2006 and 17-07-2006, the petitioners have preferred revision under Section 50 of the Code to the Board of Revenue on 20-07-2006 and the said revision is pending. When the matter stood thus, the petitioners have moved this writ petition l?"=r——7—-- - -• pu pue jsMod aAReflsiuitupe ue si QS uoipag jspun psyioeds sjsoijjo enusAsy sifl uo psjjs^uos jSMod eq) ^eyi pusiuoo p|nom 'BJ}UOO jad 's}B30Apv '}AOQ /4ridaa psujee-f •sojisnf jBjn}eu y) se|d!3uyd .10 uoiieioiA y> punojB eyi uo }nq UOSBSJ jsi|}o Aue JQ} )ou ji spise }es sq o) s|qBi| si 9002-90-1-0 uo }uepuodsej z 844 Aq psssed jepjo S4i 'os si }! ^1 pue eojtsnf |Bjnieu jo ssidiouud ayi 4iiM Ajdujoo o} iqSno uoipsg }ein jspun jeMod eij} Buisiojaxs sjopq uisjeifl sjsoy^o psiueu si|i 'eojtsnf jejnieu 10 ssjdiouud 34} jo eoueiidiuoo joj epiAojd A||eoyiosds pu seop spoo sij} y> QS uoipes ySno^} ys^ sjsuoffBsd 94} joj [ssunoo psujee] ©4}jo uonustuoo ei;} OS[B si }| •Aisnoioudeo jo A|uej}iqje }ou pue Aisnopipnf psspjaxs eq o} pejinbs.) si spoo s4l jo QS uoip&s jspun sjsayo snueAsy si|} Aq psjje^uoo j9Mod 04} }BI(} tjtuqns OS|B pjnoM jssunoo p9UJB^^ •/(Jed psissjeiui ue Aq BUDJSB jo 83jes st^ JQJ isnf uisjsq} peuoBUsiu sjsoiyo eqi Aq psspjsxs sq ueo jQMod )Bq^ teq} UBSU) ;ou ssop i! 'pq 'uisjeq} p3uoi(usiu sjsoiyo snusAsy sq} Aq pssiajsxe 8q 0}31 8SE3 B p IBMe.lpljllM JO J8JSUGJ} ? js«ods^ iioiqM uo punojB JO 90UB}SUin3JIO AUB UOSU9LU }OU SOOp SpOQ 9l|) ^O 0£UOjpSS qBnoq} }sq} jesunoo peujBe| SL|I Aq pepusiuoo SBM i| 'sjsuosBed sqi 0} pjesq Buieq p <<}iun}joddo Aue SuiAiB inoiflim pue sjeuoi}!)sd eifl Q} eoiiou }notj}w 'oo} teq} 'iuepuodsej g sqi Aq speuu uoiieoijdde eq} jo siseq sq} uo e|y sit) 01 jndBit.iqiuv 'J0ps||00 |BUOI}!PPV JD 9|y sq»tuoj^ SO- 02/9-V/l. •O|M (eeddy puooss eq} UMBJpqiiM SAeq }ou }L|6no }U9puodsej z S4l leqi sdfuejed WS A€l pspusiuoo SBM }) •se!)uo4ine S}e}s/s}uspuodssj 04»jo^ S}BOOApy -)A03 -AQ peujeej 'BIUJSA 4sjB)|in uys pue sjsuoBHsd at^ jioi issunoo psujeei 'edfuejBd foue|ft| yqg pjesy eAey | (s) 1 •tuspuodssj g eyi Aq psssed sjspjo OMI pouoguaiusjoje SL|I Suiysenb jo^ eipu| p uonntssuoQ 041 y> QZZ 3WW Jepun -£- ^y^ :..- ^lf^ 35 -M- guas»-judicial as contended by the leamed counsel for the petitioners and therefore, there is no legal obligation for the ofRcers named therein to comply with the principles of natural justice before exercising the power under that Section. (3) Sub-Section (1) of Section 30 of the Code reads as follows: "30. Power to transfer cases to and from subordinates (1) A Collector, a Sub Divisional OfRcer, or a Tahsildar may make over any case or class of cases arising under the provisions of this Code or any other enactment for the time being in force, for decision from his own file to any Revenue Officer subordinate to him competent to decide such case or class of cases, or may withdraw any case or class of cases from any such Revenue Officer and may deal with such case or class of cases himself or refer the same for disposai to any other Revenue Officer subordinate to him competent to decide such case or ctass of cases". (4) After the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.K. Kraipak Vs. Union of India though the distinction between guasf-judicia! and administrative action has become blurred and may not be of much practical consequence, it is still reievant in determining the measure of naturai justice applicable in a given situation. Now, it is well settled that irrespective of the nature of the administrative action, that is to say, whether it is qiuasf-judicial or purely administrative, so long such action has the effect of affecting civil rights of a person, such person should be given opportunity of being heard before such action is taken. In other words, the affected should be appraised is the Constitutional creed flowing from Article 14 of theConstitution of India and the principles of natural justice. In A.K. Kraipak Vs. Union of India (Supra), the Supreme Court was of the opinion that in order to determine 1. (1969} 2 SCC 262 : AIR 1970 SC 150 -5- whether the action of the administrative authority is qrtfas/-judicial or administrative, one has to see the nafaire of power conferred, to whom power is given, the framework within whicli power is conferred and the consequences. In State of A.P. Vs. S.M.K. Parasurama Gurukul, the Supreme Court replying to the question whether the power of the Government to appoint trustees under Section 15 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 is quasi- judicial or administrative, held the function as administrative and opined that if there is lis between the parties, and the opinion is to be formed on objective satisfaction, the action is guasf-judicial, otherwise administrative. Similarly, the Supreme Court in Govindbhai Gordhanbhai Patel Vs. Gulam abbas Muila Allibhai opined that since there is nothing in the Act to show that the Collector had to act judicially or in conformity with the recognized judicial norms and as there is also nothing requiring the Collector to determine questions affecting the right of any party, the function of the Collector in giving or withholding permission of transfer of land to a non-agriculturist under Section 63(1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1947 is administrative. in Krishna Tiles & Potteries (P) Ltd. Vs. Company Law Board , applying the same parameters, the Delhi High Court held that the function of the Company Law Board granting authority to shareholders to file a petition in the High Court is an administrative and not a <yuas;-judjcial function. Furthermore, it needs to be noticed that the Supreme Court in Ram Avtar Sharma Vs. State of Haryana held 2. (1973) 2 SCC 232 : AIR 1973 SC 2237 3. (1977) 3 SCC 179 : AIR 1977 SC 1019 4. ILR (1979) 1 Del 435 5. AIR 1985 915 : (1985)3 SCC 189 that the function of the Government under Sections 10,12(5) and 11-A under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to make or refuse a reference to the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal is administrative in nature. Similarly, in State of U.P. Vs. Raja Ram Jaiswal , the Supreme Court held that the power to grant or refuse a licence is administrative in character. (5) in the premise of the above-noted case law, when you look at the provisions of sub-Section (1) of Section 30 of the Code, it is crystal clear that the power conferred 6n the Collector is administrative in nature. When a Collector exercises the power of transfer or withdrawal of a case, that action does not affect or impair in any way any of the legal rights of the parties to the case. It is true that in some cases transfer or withdrawa! of a case may inconvenience a party to such case, but only on that count the power conferred on the Collector could not be regarded as quasf-judicial in nature. Since the order that may be made by a Coltector for transfemng a case from his file or withdrawing a case from another officer's file to his own file does not affect or impair any of the lega! rights of the parties to such case, giving of a notice is not necessary before passing such order. (6) It is true that since the power conferred on the Collector under sub-Section (1) of Section 30 of the Code being a statutory power, the Collector is expected to exercise that power reasonably and fairly and not arbitrarily. In the instant case, it cannot be said that the Collector has exercised the power arbitrarily and without any reason or rhyme as contended by the learned counsel forthe petitioners; !n 6. AIR 1985 SC 1108 :(1985) 3 SCC 131. *;g^ W£.!-: g» ^ ^*^i'[^i%T a5!ilSB£33I93 .^g|^|gg|eg|^jj|iSi^||i|j.Bj 'j9AeMUi^(iassjuisip: Ks^gg^g»gB|j||g|g|gi||g^^j|g«%sx;^ ||||iiJ|^c||%MB^|g|Bt|^E^|||^^^^^^g||ie(l|(r^^ ~ws'siigBiosMBJBS8fiB88i88BSI!8^1Htu3RuOff8q' SOBswi5p,,2.si.(l.jp:.uoi^e|®B||^gg^ggjg|^j^^BUj|!e9i.|; -l:":^/:;^'.:"^'''":.y;.^.'^^'^^'^^::^%^^ :'^^i:^^^;®^^:tSS^^^s^^^i!i^[;S^^N^^: :ljio^^|y/uMO';sj^ia^yni^ic|UJV:i'J<y3^|^i|ei.ic>S SSStSx ^B^clB^|!^.i^gi.Jlui(K^^^:l^nc>|^a^^ ^|^y.-|'^|e||^e||UB|^||Becli|j|^t|i|^:iii9^ ^^;^j^ni^!<:|U|n^|sij^ist|oQ;^BUgRJRp\^Lfl5^^ ^i<^R|^n|ig!sui83jjugsc|%^|^|B|^i^ ^j^3u^uB|si.|^Buj^|aid<lB,l|s|3|^ ^^^|Qg)^euiMt!gRv|^^y^;uj^|uw|JBtB!A^|s^^ ,y»i°-<'a