SAMPAT RAM VERMA Vs. ADDL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is the owner of house No. 75, Chaubey Ji Ka Bagh, Firozabad, district Agra, The Municipal Board Firozabad, respondent No. 2 assessed the aforesaid house at the rate of Rs. 5,400/- per annum. The peti tioner was aggrieved by the said assessment and as such, he filed an appeal to the District Magistrate, Agra, under Section 160 of the U. P. Municipalities Act. The Additional District Magistrate (Executive) Agra, to whom the appeal was transferred, dismissed it in default on 23rd November, 1973. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application for restoration of the appeal to its original number. This application was dismissed by the Additional District Magistrate (Executive), Agra, on 22nd December, 1973, on the ground that the restoration application is not maintainable in law and he has no power to restore the appeal which had been dismissed in default. Aggrieved by the order dated 22nd December, 1973, the present writ petition has been filed in this Court. In spite of notice, no counter-affidavit has been filed, either by the Additional District Magistrate, Agra, or by the Municipal Board, Firozabad. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the Additional District Magistrate, Agra, has the jurisdiction to restore the appeal to its original number and the view, to the contrary, of the Additional District Magistrate, is manifestly erroneous. An appeal lies against an assessment order under Section 160 of the U. P. Municipalities Act. The appeal has to be made either to the District Magistrate or to such other officer as may be specified by the State Govern ment in this behalf. The appellate authority has to decide the appeal after hearing the parties. It is therefore a quasi-judicial authority. Section 164 (2) of the U. P. Municipalities Act provides that the appellate authority upon an application made within three months from the date of the original order or on its own motion can review an order passed on appeal by a further order. Provided further that no order shall be reviewed by the appellate authority on its own motion beyond three months from its date. In the instant case, the application was moved by the petitioner for setting aside the order passed in default on the same day. The application was therefore, within three months of the date of the passing of the order dismissing the appeal in default. In view of sub-clause (2) of Section 164, the appellate authority had the power to review its own order. Under this power of review, it had the power to set aside the order dismissing the appeal in default. The appellate authority, therefore, had the jurisdiction to recall the order dismissing the appeal in default. There is yet another aspect of the case. Learned counsel for the peti tioner has relied upon a decision of this Court in Guru Prasad Dixit v. State of U. P, and others, 1969 A. L. J. 460. In this case, an application was dismissed in default by the Rent Control Officer. Hon. Satish Chandra, J. (as he then was) took the view that in the case where no prescribed procedure is laid down for a quasi-judicial proceeding, the power to pass an ex-parte order of dismissal for default was linked and integrated with the power to set aside such an order when sufficient cause for the default is shown. In view of this principle, the learned Judge took the view that the Rent Control Officer had also the power to recall an order passed on an application dismissing the application in default. We respectfully agree with the principle laid down in the case of Guru Prasad Dixit v. State of U. P. and others (supra ). The appellate authority, under Section 160 of the Municipalities Act, is a quasi-judicial authority. Since it has the power to dismiss the appeal in default or pass an ex-parte order, it has also the power to recall that order. In view of the above, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is well founded. The Additional District Magistrate clearly refused to exercise a jurisdiction vested in him by law in refusing to consider the application by the petitioner for recalling the order dismissing the appeal in default on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to do so. The result, the petition is allowed. The order of the Additional District Magistrate. Firozabad, dated 22nd December, 1973, is quashed. The case is remanded to the Additional District Magistrate, Firozabad, for deciding the restoration application moved by the petitioner in accordance with law. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. .