Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

18. Mr. Mitra on behalf of the appellant refers to a number of cases for the purpose of showing that the order passed by the Commissioner under Section 33A(2) in the present case is quasi-judicial and not administrative. Let us examine those cases one by one. Reference has been made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Province of Bombay v. Kushaldas S. Advani, . In that case there was an appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Bombay and the appeal related to the power of the High Court to issue a writ of certiorari against the Province of Bombay to quash an order to requisition certain premises. The material facts in that case were as follows : One Abdul Hamid Ismail prior to 29th January 1948 was the tenant of the first floor of a building at Warden Road, Bombay, the landlord of which was one Dr. N. D. Vakil. On 29th January 1948, Ismail assigned his tenancy to the petitioner before the Supreme Court and two others All the three assignees were refugees from Sind. Oh 4th February 1948 the petitioner went into possession of the fiat. On 26th February 1948 the Government of Bombay issued an order requisitioning the flat under Section 3, Bombay Land Regulation Ordinance (5 of 1947) which came into force on the 4th of December 1947. On the same date Dr. Vakil was informed that the Government had allotted the premises to Mrs. C. Dayaram who was also a refugee from Sind. Further orders were issued authorising an Inspector to take possession of the premises. On 4th March 1948 the petitioner filed a petition for a writ of certiorari and an order under Section 45, Specific Relief Act subsequently. The petition was heard by Bhagwati J. who inter alia granted the writ against the Province of Bombay and others. On appeal, the Appellate Court confirmed the order as regards the issue of the writ of certiorari against the appellant, but cancelled the order as regards the other parties. An appeal was preferred against the order of the Bombay High Court by the Province of Bombay to the Supreme Court. The appeal was allowed by the Supreme Court and the petition was dismissed. Mahajan J. and Mukherjee J. however, were in favour of dismissing the appeal, but they were in a minority. The learned Judges of the Supreme Court in that case had to consider the nature of the order passed by the Bombay Government in requisitioning the disputed premises, and certain broad propositions were laid down for the purpose of ascertaining whether an order is administrative or judicial or quasi-judicial, Mr. Mitra reads out the following passage from the judgment delivered by Das, J. :