Quasi-judicial power has to be exercised only by an officer empowered to do so, not by any other authority: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court recently reiterated that quasi judicial power will have to be exercised only by an officer who is empowered to do so and not by any other authority. [Chitrakala vs State of Karnataka and others].Hence, single-judge Justice M Nagaprasanna ruled that Commissioner of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), who holds quasi-judicial powers, can exercise those powers only by himself and cannot delegate it to any other authority.."Manifold powers, duties and obligations are cast upon the Commissioner in terms of the Act, a few of them are quasi-judicial in nature as the Commissioner is empowered to adjudicate upon the rights of the parties. Adjudication upon the rights of the parties cannot but be a power that is quasi-judicial in nature. Therefore, quasi-judicial power will have to be exercised only by such an officer who is empowered to exercise and not by any other authority," the judgment said..The petitioner had challenged an order dated March 16, 2019, passed by the BBMP Commissioner, declining to accept the claim of the petitioner and directing that the activity of the petitioner performed in her residential premises cannot be allowed to continue. When an identical notice was issued to her on September 30, 2018, the petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the said notice. .The High Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the BBMP to determine whether the activity conducted by the petitioner in her premises was permissible in terms of the notification dated March 20, 2015.Subsequently, proceedings were initiated by the Head of the Legal Cell, who heard the petitioner and the third respondent - Health Officer, who had inspected the premises of the petitioner. .After the matter was heard by the Head of the Legal Cell, the Commissioner passed an order on March 16, 2019, declining to permit the activity that the petitioner was conducting in her residential premises.This came to be challenged by the petitioner by way of the present petition. .Advocate Sunil S Rao, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the Head of the Legal Cell could not have heard the matter for the Commissioner to pass an order declining to permit the activity that the petitioner was carrying in her residential premises. This is unknown to law, it was argued. On the other hand, Advocate Amith Deshpande, appearing for BBMP refuted the submission and contended that in terms of Section 66 of the Karnataka Municipal Act, 1976, the power of the Commissioner to hear and dispose of the matters could be delegated to the Head of the Legal Cell. .Quasi judicial powers cannot be bartered awayKarnataka High Court.After the perusing the facts as well as the arguments placed, the Court noted that the BBMP Commissioner who did not hear the matter, had decided the matter. This, the Court opined, would fall foul of the rudimentary principle of 'he who decides, must hear'..Reliance was also placed on the judgments in Gullapalli Nageswara Rao vs A.P State Road Transport Corporation and Union of India vs P Andrew, by the Court. .On the point of Section 66 of the Karnataka Muncipal Act, 1976 which permits the BBMP Commissioner to delegate his ordinary powers, the Court said, "Section 66 of the Act, in my considered view, can only be a delegation of his ordinary powers, duties and functions and not delegating quasi judicial powers. Quasi judicial powers cannot be bartered away contrary to duties and obligations imposed upon the Commissioner in terms of the statute.".With these observations, Justice Nagaprasanna set aside the order dated March 16, 2019 passed by the Commissioner and remitted the matter back to the Commissioner to hear the parties afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within eight weeks. .The Court, however, clarified that setting aside of the order of the Commissioner, would not mean that the petitioner can restore the activity in the premises she was performing earlier. "The consequential benefit of either the activity to be let or not, would depend upon the orders of the Commissioner in the proceedings now remitted," said the Court..[Read Judgement]