Quasi-Judicial Authorities Lack Review Power

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh in the case of State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Jai Hind Pvt. Ltd. (2025) held that quasi-judicial authorities are not empowered to exercise review jurisdiction unless statutorily empowered to do so. The Court overturned the Calcutta High Court's decision and held that the Revenue Officer's review order was without jurisdiction and void ab initio. 

What was the Background of State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Jai Hind Pvt. Ltd. (2025) Case? 

• The dispute arose under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 (WBEA Act). 
• A Revenue Officer had earlier passed an order determining vesting of land in the State. 
• Years later, the same authority purported to review and reopen its earlier decision in favour of Respondent-Jai Hind Pvt. Ltd. 
• The review was undertaken pursuant to an executive direction issued by the State Government. 
• The executive direction cited economic considerations and proposed industrial use of the land. 
• The fresh order dated 07.05.2008 vested the disputed land in favour of the respondent. 
• This vesting was done when the land had earlier stood vested with the State government. 
• This prompted the State to challenge the legality of the review exercise. 

Central Issue: 

• The central issue before the Court was whether a Revenue Officer, exercising quasi-judicial functions, could review its own earlier order in the absence of an express statutory power. 
• Particularly, whether such review could be undertaken when it was triggered by an executive instruction. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

Review Power Not Inherent: 

• The judgment authored by Justice Kotiswar Singh emphasized that the power of review is not inherent and must be conferred by statute either expressly or by necessary implication. 
• The Court held: "…we hold that the review undertaken by the Revenue Officer culminating in the fresh order dated 07.05.2008 was wholly without jurisdiction and void ab initio. The WBEA Act, 1953, does not confer any power of substantive review upon the Revenue Officer, either expressly or by necessary implication." 

No Statutory Provision for Review: 

• The Court noted that no provision under the WBEA Act empowers the Revenue Officer to exercise review jurisdiction. 
• Moreover, the proviso to Section 57B(3) explicitly states that the Revenue Officer shall not re-open any matter which has already been enquired into, investigated, determined or decided by the State Government or any authority under any of the provisions of this Act. 

High Court's Error: 

• The Court held that the High Court incorrectly proceeded on the premise that the Government Order issued under Section 57A of the WBEA Act, 1953, having been approved by the Minister-in-Charge, constituted sufficient authority to confer review jurisdiction upon the Revenue Officer. 
• The Court stated: "This approach conflated executive direction with statutory conferment of substantive power and treated review as a mere procedural incident of Civil Court powers." 
• The High Court also overlooked the limits on vesting the judicial function of review power in executive authorities. 

Impermissible Vesting: 

• The Court held that the vesting of the disputed land in favour of the respondent was impermissible, particularly when the land had earlier stood vested with the State government. 

Appeal Allowed: 

• Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

What is a Quasi-Judicial Body? 

About: 

Quasi-judicial bodies are non-judicial entities with the authority to interpret the law, such as arbitration panels or tribunal boards, which have been given powers and procedures similar to those of a court of law or judge. 

• These bodies serve as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism, bridging the gap between the executive and judicial functions of the State. 
• For example, the Election Commission of India is a Quasi-Judicial Body but does not have its core functions as a Court of Law. 

Features of Quasi-Judicial Bodies: 

The following features characterize quasi-judicial bodies in India: 

• Dispute Resolution: Quasi-judicial bodies have the authority to arbitrate cases and impose penalties. Parties can seek justice from these bodies, thereby avoiding the complexities of the formal judicial system. 
• Limited Adjudicating Powers: Their jurisdiction is typically confined to specific areas of expertise, such as financial markets, employment laws, public standards, or regulatory matters. For instance, the Company Law Appellate Tribunal addresses issues related to corporate governance and functioning. 
• Predetermined Rules: The decisions and awards of quasi-judicial bodies are often guided by established rules and based on existing legal frameworks. 
• Punishing Authority: These bodies possess the power to impose penalties for violations within their jurisdiction. For example, Consumer Courts in India adjudicate consumer disputes and penalize companies engaged in illegal practices. 
• Judicial Review: The rulings of quasi-judicial bodies can be appealed in a court of law, with the judiciary's decision being paramount. 
• Expert Leadership: Unlike the judiciary, which is presided over by judges, quasi-judicial bodies are typically led by experts in relevant fields such as finance, economics, and law. 

Powers of Quasi-Judicial Bodies: 

Quasi-judicial bodies exercise the following powers: 

• Conduct Hearings: They can hold hearings to gather evidence and hear testimony from witnesses. 
• Factual Determination: Quasi-judicial authorities can make relevant factual determinations based on the evidence presented at a hearing. 
• Applying the Law: They can apply the law to the facts they have determined and make decisions regarding the legal rights, duties, or privileges of the parties involved. 
• Issue Orders or Decisions: They can issue orders or decisions that have legal force, such as requiring a party to pay damages or comply with certain conditions. 
• Enforcing Decisions: They can take steps to enforce their decisions, such as by imposing fines or other penalties for non-compliance. 

Major Quasi-Judicial Bodies in India: 

The following are some of the major quasi-judicial bodies operating in India: 

• Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) 
• Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) 
• Central Information Commission (CIC) 
• Lok Adalat 
• Finance Commission 
• National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission 
• National Green Tribunal 
• Railway Claims Tribunal 

Key Differences Between Judicial and Quasi-Judicial Bodies: 

The following table illustrates the key differences between judicial and quasi-judicial bodies: