Case: Amrik Singh Lyallpuri Vs. Union Of India

under Section 111 of the Act against the resolution of the company refusing to register the share. In such a situation, this Court held that when Government, in exercise of its power of appeal under Section 111 Clause (3) is acting it is invested with the judicial power of the State to decide disputes according to law. In such a case, the Central Government is acting as a Tribunal and it is amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136. (See paras 10 and 23 of the report). 20. As noted above, the issue in this case is not whether the administrator under the aforesaid statutory provision is a tribunal under Article 136 of the Act. The issue is, as discussed above, whether the administrative authority can sit in appeal over the decisions of a judicial or quasi judicial authority which has the trappings of the Civil Court. Therefore, the decision in Harinagar (supra) cannot sustain the impugned judgment. 21. Even though the Administrator under the aforesaid two Acts may be the Lieutenant Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi which may be a high constitutional authority, it cannot be disputed that the said authority is an executive authority. 22. Learned senior counsel for Delhi Municipal Corporation argued by referring to the provisions of Article 239AA of the Constitution, where provisions in respect to Delhi have been made. For a proper appreciation of this question, Article 239AA, sub-article (1) is set out below:- "239AA. Special provisions with respect to Delhi.- (1) As from the date of commencement of the Constitution (Sixty- ninth Amendment) Act, 1991, the Union territory of Delhi shall be called the National Capital Territory of Delhi (hereafter in this Part referred to as the National Capital Territory) and the administrator thereof appointed under Article 239 shall be designated as the Lieutenant Governor." 23. In this connection, we can also refer to the provision of Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991, namely, Section 41 and particularly Section 41(3). Section 41 runs as under: "41. Matters in which Lieutenant Governor to act in his discretion.(1) The Lieutenant Governor shall act in his discretion in a matter-(i) which falls outside the purview of the powers conferred on the Legislative Assembly but in respect of which powers or functions are entrusted or delegated to him by the President;or(ii) in which he is required by or under any law to act in his discretion or to exercise any judicial or quasi-judicial functions.(2) If any question arises as to whether any matter is or is not a matter as respects which the Lieutenant Governor is by or under any law required to act in his discretion, the decision of the Lieutenant Governor thereon shall be final.(3) If any question arises as to whether any matter is or is not a matter as respects which the Lieutenant Governor is required by any law to exercise any judicial or quasi-judicial functions, the decision of the Lieutenant Governor thereon shall be final." 24. By referring to the aforesaid two provisions, the learned counsel argued that the Administrator, who is none other than the Lieutenant Governor, has no connection with the State and is totally independent. Therefore, when he hears the appeal, he does it as an independent appellate authority. This Court is unable to accept the aforesaid contention. It is not suggested for a moment that the Administrator, who is the Lieutenant Governor in Delhi is not acting independently. The question is: having regard to the concept of rule of law and judicial review, whether a review by an executive authority of a decision taken by the judicial or quasi-judicial authority which has the trappings of the Court is permissible. In view of the consistent opinion expressed by this Court in P. Sambhamurty (supra) and L. Chandra Kumar (supra), discussed above, we are unable to uphold the constitutional validity of Section 347D of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and Section 256 of the NDMC Act. Both the aforesaid provisions are, therefore, declared unconstitutional being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In a recent Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Union of India v. R. Gandhi, President, Madras Bar Association [(2010) 11 SCC 1] , Justice Raveendran, speaking for the unanimous Bench held:- "102. The fundamental right to equality before law and equal protection of laws guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution, clearly includes a right to have the persons rights, adjudicated by a forum which exercises judicial power in an impartial and independent manner, consistent with the recognised principles of adjudication. Therefore wherever access to courts to enforce such rights is sought to be abridged, altered, modified or substituted by directing him to approach an alternative forum, such legislative Act is open to challenge if it violates the right to adjudication by an independent forum. Therefore, though the challenge by MBA is on the ground of violation of principles forming part of the basic structure, they are relatable to one or more of the express provisions of the Constitution which gave rise to such principles. Though the validity of the provisions of a legislative Act cannot be challenged on the ground it violates the basic structure of the Constitution, it can be challenged as violative of constitutional provisions which enshrine the principles of the rule of law, separation of powers and independence of the judiciary." 25. In view of this decision by this Court, till a proper judicial authority is set up under the aforesaid Acts, the appeals to the Administrator under Section 347D of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and also under Section 256 of the NDMC Act shall lie to the District Judge, Delhi. All pending appeals filed under the erstwhile provisions, as aforesaid, shall stand transferred to the Court of District Judge, Delhi. However, the decisions which have already been arrived at by the Administrator under the aforesaid two provisions will not be reopened in view of the principles of prospective overruling. 26.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]we are unable to uphold the constitutional validity of Section 347D of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and Section 256 of the NDMC Act. Both the aforesaid provisions are, therefore, declared unconstitutional being violative of Article 14 of thea proper judicial authority is set up under the aforesaid Acts, the appeals to the Administrator under Section 347D of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and also under Section 256 of the NDMC Act shall lie to the District Judge, Delhi. All pending appeals filed under the erstwhile provisions, as aforesaid, shall stand transferred to the Court of District Judge, Delhi. However, the decisions which have already been arrived at by the Administrator under the aforesaid two provisions will not be reopened in view of the principles of prospective overruling.