NITAI PADA ROY Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule has been issued under Article 227 of the Constitution against an order made by Shri G.D. Basu, Magistrate, First class, Ranaghat, on May 13, 1968, under para. 6(6), of the West Bengal Foodgrains (Requisitioning) Order, 1967.

(2.) The facts are as follows:

(3.) The Rule was issued by a single Judge of this Court and subsequently he sent it to the Division Bench for hearing. When we heard the Rule, we raised a point as to whether Article 227 is attracted or, in other words, whether the Magistrate who decided the dispute can be said to be a Tribunal within the meaning of Article 227 of the Constitution. Paragraph 6(4) of the Requisitioning Order states that the 'District Officer' shall, after giving the Applicant an opportunity of being heard and after taking such evidence, as he deems necessary, dispose of the application. Thus the District Officer may take evidence if he thinks necessary and the District Officer must give an opportunity to the Applicant for being heard. It would, therefore, appear that what the District Officer is to do is not to pass an executive order but to hear the parties and determine the dispute judicially or quasi -judicially and in that view of the matter, we think that the District Officer while deciding the dispute under para. 6(6) of the Requisitioning order acts as a Tribunal and so Article 227 of the Constitution is attracted. We are supported, in this view, by the decision of Bijayesh Mukherji, J. in Gour Hari Mondal v/s. State of West Bengal , (1966) 71 C.W.N. 107 (118, para. 13(iv)).