AMRIK SINGH LYALLPURI versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2011] 5 S.C.R. 560 · Decided: 21-04-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011) 5 S.C.R. 560 
AMRIK SINGH L YALLPURI 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5075 of 2005) 
APRIL 21, 2011 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] 
Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957: s.347D - Appeal 
against order of Appellate Tribunal - Under s. 347D of the 
C DMC Act and s.256 of NDMC Act appeal against orders of 
Appellate Tribunal shall lie to the Administrator - Under both 
the Acts, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court has been barred -
Constitutionality of s.347D of the DMC Act and s.256 of 
NDMC Act, challenged - Held: s.347D of the DMC Act and 
D s.256 of NDMC Act are not constitutionally valid - Both the 
said provisions are, therefore, declared unconstitutional being 
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution - In view of this, till a 
proper judicial authority is set up under the said Acts, the 
appeals to the Administrator uls.347D of the DMC Act and 
E s.256 of NDMC Act shall lie to the District Judge -Alf pending 
appeals filed under the erstwhile provisions, as said, shall 
stand transferred to the Court of District Judge, Delhi -
However, the decisions which have already been arrived at 
by the Administrator under the said two provisions would not 
F be reopened in view of the principles of prospective overruling 
- New Delhi Municipal Corporation Council Act, 1994 - s. 256. 
The questions which arose for consideration in the 
instant appeal were whether an appeal from an order of 
the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Delhi 
G Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and New Delhi Municipal 
Corporation Council Act, 1994 can be heard and decided 
by the Administrator and whether Section 347D of DMC 
Act and Section 256 of NDMC Act are constitutionally 
valid. 
H 
560 
AMRIK SINGH LYALLPUR! v. UNION OF INDIA AND 
561 
ORS. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. A perusal of the provisions of Section 347 A 
A 
and 347C, sub-clause (7) of the Delhi Municipal 
Corporation Act, 1957, (DMC Act) shows that the 
Appellate Tribunal shall be manned by a person who is 
or has been a District Judge or an Additional District 
B 
Judge or has, for at least ten years, held a judicial office 
in India [Section 347A, sub-clause (3)]. Insofar as Section 
347C is concerned, it is very clear that such Tribunal shall 
have in certain matters, the trappings of a Civil Court 
trying a suit under the Civil Procedure Code. Clause (f) 
C 
of sub-section (7) of Section 347 further provides that 
proceedings before such Tribunal shall be judicial 
proceedings within the meaning of Section 193 and 
Section 228 for the purpose of Section 196 of the Indian 
Penal Code and every Appellate Tribunal shall be deerned o 
to be a Civil Court for the purpose of Section 195 and 
Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The . 
provisions of Section 253 of the NDMC Act are virtually 
on the same lines. Under sub-section (3) of Section 253 
of the NDMC Act, a person shall not be qualified for 
E 
appointment as a presiding officer of an Appellate 
Tribunal unless he is, or has been, a District Judge or an 
Additional District Judge or has, for at least ten years, 
held a judicial office. Similarly1 Section 255 of the NDMC 
Act virtually is pari materia with sub-section (7) of Section 
F 
347C of the DMC Act. Therefore, on a reading of the said 
two provisions, it is clear that the Appellate Tribunals 
created under the said statutes are quasi judicial bodies 
with the trappings of the Civil Court and that they are 
manned by judicial officers of considerable experience. 
In discharging their 1\mctions, such bodies are acting as 
G 
a Civil Court in respect of some of its functions, and the 
proceedings before such bodies are judicial proceedings. 
An appeal is provided·against the order of such Appellate 
Tribunals under both the statutes. [Paras 5, 6, 7] [567 ·B· 
H; 568-A] 
., •. :. .... · ........ 111 ;,,, ., H ri. 
562 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011) 5 S.C.R. 
A 
2.1. Under Section 3470 of the DMC Act, such appeal 
shall lie to the Administrator. Similarly, under Section 256 
of the NDMC Act, appeal also lies to the Administrator. 
Both the sections, namely, Section 3470 of the said Act 
and Section 256 of the NDMC Act are couched in similar 
8 terms. Under both the Acts, the jurisdiction of the Civil 
Court has been barred; vide Section 347E of the said Act 
and Section 257 of the NDMC Act. On a comparison of 
the definitions of term 'administrator' in DMC Act and 
NDMC Act, it is clear that there i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.