MAYUR VASANT SONAWANE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to the reference made by a Division Bench (Coram: Nitin Jamdar and Sarang V. Kotwal, JJ.) vide order dtd. 17/12/2021, we are called upon to decide the following two issues:

(2.) The Division Bench (Coram: Nitin Jamdar and Sarang V. Kotwal, JJ.) who heard this Writ Petition did not agree with the view of another Division Bench (Coram: R.M. Borde and A.I.S. Cheema, JJ.) expressed in the case of Suraj Balbhim Shelke Vs. State of Maharashtra and others 2016(4) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 273, and therefore referred these questions to be decided by a Larger Bench.

(3.) Necessity to decide these issues arose because, depending on whether the order passed under Sec. 60 of the Act of 1951 is quasi judicial or not; the matters challenging the order passed under Sec. 60 of the Act of 1951 could be decided by a Single Judge or a Division Bench. Chapter XVII Rule 18 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 describes the Single Judge's power to finally dispose of the applications under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. In particular, the explanation given under the said Rule is important. The order passed under the Act of 1951 is mentioned at Sr. No.23 under that Rule. The relevant contents of the said Rule are as follows :