LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF versus NANDINI J. SHAH & ORS

Citation: [2018] 2 S.C.R. 277 · Decided: 20-02-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 9 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
277
[2018] 2  S.C.R. 277
277
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
v.
NANDINI J. SHAH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 15536  of 2017)
FEBRUARY 20, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, AMITAVA ROY AND
A. M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.]
Letters Patent Appeal:
Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) against order passed in Writ
petition u/Art. 226/227 – Maintainability of – Held: The Writ petition
against order of Appellate Officer (District Judge) under Public
Premises Act, was a petition against order of a civil judge – Such
order is amenable to scrutiny of  High Court only in exercise of
jurisdiction u/Art. 227 and not u/Art. 226 – Therefore, LPA against
order in Writ Petition u/Art. 227 was not maintainable – Public
Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 – s. 9 –
Constitution of India – Arts. 226 and 227.
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act,
1971:
s.9 – Order of District Judge – In exercise of power u/s. 9 as
an Appellate Officer – Whether such order is passed in capacity of
a Civil Court or persona designata – Held: Power exercised by
Appellate Officer u/s. 9 is a judicial power and not executive
power – District Judge of the City Civil Court and other judicial
officers of these courts constitute a class and cannot be considered
as persona designata – Legislative intent behind providing an appeal
u/s. 9 before Appellate Officer to be District Judge is indicative of
the fact that the power to be exercised by the Appellate Officer is
not in his capacity as a persona designate, but a judicial Officer –
Therefore, the Appellate Officer while exercising power u/s. 9 does
not act as a persona designata, but in his capacity as a pre-existing
judicial authority in the district i.e. District Judge.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Sub-section (1) of Section 9 of Public Premises
(Eviction of Unatuhorised Occupants) Act, 1971 postulates that
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
278
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018]  2 S.C.R.
an appeal shall lie from every order of the estate Officer, passed
under the Act, to an Appellate Officer. As to who shall be the
Appellate Officer, has also been specified in the same provision.
It predicates the District Judge of the district in which the public
premises are situated or such other judicial officer in that district
of not less than 10 years standing as the District Judge to be
designated for that purpose. The first part of the provision does
suggest that the appeal shall lie to an Appellate Officer, however,
it does not follow therefrom that the Appellate Officer is persona
designata. Something more is required to hold so. Had it been a
case of designating a person by name as an Appellate Officer, the
concomitant would be entirely different. However, when the
Appellate Officer is either the District Judge of the district or
any another judicial officer in that district possessing necessary
qualification who could be designated by the District Judge, the
question of such investiture of power of an appellate authority in
the District Judge or Designated Judge would by no standards
acquire the colour or for that matter trappings of persona
designata. [Para 30] [317-A-D]
1.2 The power to be exercised by the Appellate Officer in
terms of Section 9 is a judicial power of the State which is quite
distinct from the executive power of the State. The District Judge
or designated judicial officer exercises judicial authority within
his jurisdiction.  As the Act predicates the Appellate Officer is to
be a District Judge or judicial officer, it is indicative of the fact of
a pre existing authority exercising judicial power of the State.
District Judge is the creature of Section 5 of the Maharashtra
Civil Courts Act, 1869, who presides over a District Court
invariably consisting of more than one Judge in the concerned
district. [Para 30] [317-D-F]
1.3 On the similar lines, the Bombay City Civil Court has
been constituted under Section 3 of the Bombay City Civil Court
Act, 1948, with jurisdiction to receive, try and dispose of all suits
and other proceedings of a civil nature arising within the Greater
Bombay except a suit or proceedings which are cognizable by
the High Court referred to therein and by Small Causes Court.
[Para 30]  [318-B-C]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
279
1.4  The District Judge or Principal Judge exercises judicial
power of the State and is an authority having its own hierarchy of
superior and inferior Courts, the law of procedure according to
which it would dispose of matters coming before it depending 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.