#Quasi-Judicial Functions

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that disciplinary proceedings against a quasi-judicial officer cannot proceed for errors made in the course of statutory functions unless malafide intent is proven. This ruling shields revenue officers, tehsildars, and similar functionaries from retaliatory departmental action over bona fide judicial decisions, reinforcing the independence of quasi-judicial roles under Article 14 and the Judges (Protection) Act.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that quasi-judicial powers under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, cannot be sub-delegated by the District Magistrate to subordinate officers. Orders passed by unauthorized officers are void, affecting appellate proceedings under the Act.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that approaching the Insurance Ombudsman-classified as a 'Court' under Section 2(1)(aaa) of the Legal Services Authorities Act-before filing a dispute with the Permanent Lok Adalat extinguishes the PLA’s jurisdiction. This holding reinforces the mandatory pre-litigation exhaustion requirement under Section 22C, impacting consumers seeking redressal under alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.