Case: Amrik Singh Lyallpuri Vs. Union Of India

The question was raised in a writ petition filed by the appellant who is a journalist by profession and the editor of Urdu Weekly called `Lalkar. In the petition it has been urged that one Shri B.S. Mathur, Additional District and Sessions Judge was appointed the Presiding Officer of the MCD/NDMC Appellate Tribunal in terms of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 347 of the said Act. His appointment was made for deciding appeals preferred under Section 343 or Section 347B of the said Act. Shri B.S. Mathur was appointed in Appellate Tribunal to hear and dispose of all appeals from the order passed by the Zonal Engineer (Buildings) of the respective zones of Municipal Corporation of Delhi and that of New Delhi Municipal Council. However, the grievance of the appellant is that orders of the Appellate Tribunal are appealable before the Administrator of Delhi i.e. Lt. Governor under Section 347D of the said Act. The main grievance in the public interest litigation is when an appeal is decided by an Appellate Authority which is manned by a Judge of the Civil Court, appeal from the decision of such authority cannot be heard and by an executive authority, however high such executive authority maya perusal of the provisions of Section 347A and 347C, sub-clause (7), it is clear that the said tribunal shall be manned by a person who is or has been a District Judge or an Additional District Judge or has, for at least ten years, held a judicial office in India [Section 347A, sub-clause (3)]. Insofar as Section 347C is concerned, it is very clear that such tribunal shall have in certain matters, the trappings of a Civil Court trying a suit under the Civil Procedure Code. Clause (f) of sub-section (7) of Section 347 further provides that proceedings before such tribunal shall be judicial proceedings within the meaning of Section 193 and Section 228 for the purpose of Section 196 of the Indian Penal Code and every Appellate Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for the purpose of Section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure.6. The provisions of Section 253 of the NDMC Act are virtually on the same lines. Under sub-section (3) of Section 347A and sub-section (3) of Section 253 of the NDMC Act, a person shall not be qualified for appointment as a 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 ten years, held a judicial office. Similarly, Section 355 of the NDMC Act virtually is pari materia with sub-section (7) of Section 347C of the said Act. Therefore, on a reading of the aforesaid two provisions it is clear that the Appellate Tribunals created under the aforesaid statutes are quasi judicial bodies with the trappings of the Civil Court and that they are manned by judicial officers of considerable experience. In discharging their functions, such bodies are acting as a Civil Court in respect of some of its functions, and the proceedings before such bodies are judicial proceedings.7. However, an appeal is provided against the order of such Appellate Tribunals under both theunder Section 256 of the NDMC Act, appeal also lies to the Administrator. Both the sections, namely, Section 347D of the said Act and Section 256 of the NDMC Act are couched in similar terms. Under both the Acts, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court has been barred; vide Section 347E of the said Act and Section 257 of the NDMC Act.10. The main question which was raised in the writ petition moved before the High Court was whether an appeal from an order of the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the aforesaid two Acts can be heard and decided by thea comparison of the aforesaid definitions, it is clear that there is not much difference in the aforesaid two definitions and by Administrator is meant "Lieutenant Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi".

Reasoning: 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.