when statue vests with an authority power to take decisions, such power partakes a quasi-judicial complexion

1.            PIO need not obtain permission of any other authority

Kamal Kumar Narottam Dash Parekh vs Superintendent ... on 6 August, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

                      CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

W. P. No. 1163 of 2007 Judgment On:                           06.08.2009

21. The impugned order has also been challenged on the ground that the impounding authority did not apply its mind in passing the order but acted on the dictate of the police authorities. Two authorities have been relied on behalf of the petitioners on this count being a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh & Ors. reported in 1989 (2) SCC 505 and AnirudhSinhji & Karansinhji Jadeja & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (1995) 5 SCC 302. Both these decisions are authorities for the proposition that when statue vests with an authority power to take decisions of this nature, such power partakes a quasi-judicial complexion. While taking decision in exercise of such power, the authority, as held in the case of State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh & Ors. (supra):-

"must bring to bear an unbiased mind, consider impartially the objections raised by the aggrieved party and decide the mater consistent with the principles of natural justice. The authority cannot permit its decision to be influenced by the dictation of others as this would amount to abdication and surrender of its discretion. It would then not be the authority's discretion that is exercised, but someone else's...."[State of U.P. Vs. Maharaja Dharmandar Prasad Singh (supra)].

W. P. No. 1163 of 2007 Judgment On: 06.08.2009