AMRIK SINGH LYALLPURI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The principal question raised in this appeal is the constitutional validity of Section 347D of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the said Act'). Similar provisions are also there in Section 256 of New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the NDMC Act').

(2.) 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 may be.

(3.) In order to appreciate this controversy it is necessary to consider the relevant statutory provisions. The provision for constitution of an Appellate Tribunal under Section 347A of the said Act are as follows:-