Min’s move to delegate hearing to jr min upheld

Aurangabad: The Bombay high court bench at Aurangabad has disposed of a

writ petition

against the urban development minister’s move to delegate a

quasi-judicial hearing

over the removal of Beed municipal council president, to the minister of state for urban development. The HC held that the cabinet minister acted within his powers to delegate the matter to the junior minister.

The bench of Justice S V Gangapurvala and Justice S G Dige on December 23 directed all parties to appear before the minister of state in the proceedings. Beed civic council president Bharat Bhushan Kshirsagar had moved the HC challenging the cabinet minister’s communication of March 3, transferring the hearing before the minister of state, and a March 5 communication that asked for a report on Kshirsagar from the Beed district collector.

The petitioner had argued, among other things, that the complaint for his removal filed by NCP MLA Sandip Kshirsagar before the cabinet minister was politically motivated to settle political and personal scores as he (Bharat) is the brother of a Shiv Sena functionary. The minister of state to whom the matter has been transferred, represents the NCP whereas the cabinet minister represents the Shiv Sena.

He also argued that as per the rules of business made by the Governor, the cabinet minister had no powers to delegate quasi-judicial hearings to the junior minister. Besides, the district collector in the past had thrice filed reports with the government, exonerating him from any misconduct as alleged by the complainant-MLA.

The HC, after hearing both sides and referring to citations, held that the delegation of hearing was permissible as the rules of business are directory in nature and not mandatory. The only exception being the case involving financial implications wherein then the business rules are mandatory.

“The procedural rules made by the Governor for the convenient transaction of business of the state government apply also to quasi-judicial acts, provided those rules conform to the principles of judicial procedure. ……. the Governor of Maharashtra issued instructions for more convenient transaction of the rules of business of the Government of Maharashtra.”

“Clause 4 of the said instructions permits the Minister In-charge by means of Standing Order to give such directions as he thinks fit for disposal of cases in the department. In the light of said clause, the Minister In-charge was within his powers to delegate and/or transmit the matter to the Minister of State. It cannot be said that he did not possess the power to delegate or transmit the matter to the Minister of State. The said powers seem to be legitimately complied,” the bench held.

On the March 5 communication seeking collector’s report, the HC said, “Merely because for more than two times reports are called itself would not be sufficient to quash the reports or the proceedings. The petitioner will have every opportunity to controvert the report from the Collector, if it is against him.”