Topic
Quasi-judicial proceedings in India refer to administrative or regulatory decisions made by bodies like tribunals or authorities that follow judicial principles such as natural justice, even though they are not formal courts.
Bombay High Court reinforces that EPF damages under Section 14-B must align with the degree of default and delay, setting aside an Rs.8.27L levy for violating natural justice. The ruling mandates reasoned orders and proportional penalties, impacting employers facing EPF compliance disputes.
Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench quashes orders passed without adhering to the mandatory five-day advance notice requirement in quasi-judicial proceedings under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The ruling reinforces procedural fairness, directing authorities to provide adequate hearing opportunities before passing orders.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that dismissing a land acquisition reference after evidence concludes but before final arguments - even due to administrative delays - violates the fundamental right to be heard. This sets a critical precedent for quasi-judicial bodies: procedural fairness cannot be sacrificed for docket management, and parties must be given a meaningful opportunity to argue on framed issues.
The Karnataka High Court ruled that while cross-examination is not mandatory under Section 41 of the Municipalities Act, the removal of an elected councillor must be supported by a reasoned order engaging with their explanation to satisfy natural justice. The decision sets a precedent for quasi-judicial proceedings under local governance laws, ensuring procedural fairness in disciplinary actions against public representatives.
The Jharkhand High Court nullified a ₹12.54 crore electricity theft assessment against Jharkhand Ispat because the distributor failed to conduct the mandatory inspection under Section 126 and imposed charges not authorized by the Supply Code. This ruling reinforces that statutory compliance is non-negotiable in quasi-judicial tariff assessments, affecting all industrial consumers subject to DVC and similar utility audits.
CESTAT Chandigarh rules that denying an assessee the right to cross-examine witnesses whose statements form the basis of a tax demand violates natural justice and Section 9D of the Central Excise Act. The ruling reinforces procedural safeguards in quasi-judicial proceedings, impacting tax assessments and CENVAT credit disputes.
An appellate order under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, is void if passed by a single District Magistrate without the two mandatory non-official members mandated by Haryana’s 2020 notification. This ruling reinforces that quasi-judicial tribunals must strictly adhere to statutorily prescribed composition - affecting senior citizens’ appeals, district magistrates, and administrative compliance across Haryana and Punjab.
Rajasthan High Court sets aside panchayat revision orders passed without hearing the petitioners, reinforcing that quasi-judicial bodies under the Panchayati Raj Act must adhere to the principles of natural justice. The ruling underscores that ex-parte decisions in land disputes are invalid if parties are not afforded a fair opportunity to be heard.
The Uttarakhand High Court ruled that the Supreme Court’s 90-day limitation extension under Article 142, granted during the COVID-19 pandemic, applies to all quasi-judicial proceedings, including appeals under the Central Excise Act. This holding clarifies that litigants need not prove the original limitation expired during the pandemic to avail the extension, ensuring broader relief for delayed filings.
Bombay High Court rules that res judicata applies to quasi-judicial proceedings under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA), barring subsequent deemed conveyance applications after a final rejection on merits. The decision reinforces finality in property disputes and limits repetitive litigation by successors or claimants.
Bombay High Court holds that quasi-judicial authorities cannot revisit rejected deemed conveyance applications under MOFA Act; res judicata applies strictly.
Calcutta High Court holds that recording bargadar status without notice to landowners violates natural justice, setting a precedent for procedural fairness in land reform proceedings.