AMAR SINGH Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, for quashing an order of the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, dated November 15, 1973, whereby he refused to grant consent to the institution of a suit in exercise of his powers under Section 38 of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioners claim that the refusal of consent was materially irregular and in wrongful exercise of his jurisdiction making the order patently illegal.

(2.) An elaboration of facts would not be necessary in view of the preliminary objection taken by the learned counsel for the respondents. It has been pointed out that the power exercisable by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 38 of the Act is administrative in nature and not amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution or even for a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution. In support thereof, reliance has been placed on Bawa Amrita Nand Gir Chela Bawa Sonawar Gir Baghichi v. Advocate General Punjab at Chandigarh, and Others, 1974 AIR(P&H) 334 wherein a Division Bench of this Court took the view that the Advocate General while giving his consent to the institution of the suit under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code (unamended) two or more persons, does not act quasi-judicially and no writ of certiorari will lie against such an order. Their Lordships of the Division Bench specifically overruled the decision in Sadhu Singh Sunder Singh v. Mangalgir Mohatmin Dera,1956 AIR(Pepsu) 65 wherein a contrary view was taken by a Single Bench of that Court. To meet the preliminary objection, the learned counsel for the petitioners states that the wrong committed to the petitioners is ex facie patent on the order and as such powers under Article 227 of the Constitution should be exercised and if not, powers under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, should be exercised to quash the impugned order. It is to be noticed that the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution pertains to orders of this Subordinate Courts or to orders passed by quasi-judicial tribunals. The Deputy Commissioner exercising powers under Section 38 of the Act, exercises powers which are pari materia the same as that of the Advocate General under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code (unamended). As such, in view of Bawa Amrita Nand Gir's case the error in the order, if any, cannot be corrected under Article 227 of the Constitution, the order being administrative and not quasi judicial. On the same premises, jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code cannot be exercised for the order has not been passed in any case pending or decided by a Subordinate Court within the jurisdiction of the High Court.

(3.) From whatever angle the matter be looked into, the preliminary objection of the learned counsel for the respondents, appears to be weighty and deserves to score over the maintainability of the petition.