P.K. Mohanti, J.
1. The Government Order in Annexure 3 setting aside the order of the Collector of Mayurbhanj as per Annexure 2 is under challenge in this writ petition.
2. The petitioner is the Gudiala-bandha Grama Sasan in Badasahi Community Development Block of the Sada Subdivision within the district of Mayurbhanj. Opposite party No. 2 is the Lakhanasahi Grama Sasan within Khunta No. 1 Community Development Block of Udala Subdivision within the district of Mayurbhanj. The petitioner's case is that there has been a cattle market from many years past running in the village Balijoda within the jurisdiction of Gudialabanda Grama Sasan and this cattle, market is held on each Saturday. During the year 1979, the residents of Lakhanasahi Grama Sasan (Opposite party No. 2) decided to hold a cattle market at village Dukura on Saturday every week. This new cattle market at Dukura being situated at a distance of about 9 kilometers from Balijoda seriously affected the volume of transactions held in the cattle market at Balijoda. Although the market at Dukura is ordinarily held on Tuesday and Friday every week, the residents of Lakhanasahi Grama Sasan had deliberately chosen to select Saturday as the day for their new cattle market. The Izradar of the Balijoda cattle market made a representation on 2-4-1979 to the Block Development Officer, Badasahi Block, the Sadar Subdivisional Panchayat Officer, the District Panchayat Officer and the Collector of Mayurbhanj for redress. The Block Development Officer of Badasahi and the Sarpanch of the Gudialabandha Grama Panchayat lodged a formal complaint with the Collector against the conduct of opposite party No. 2 in holding the cattle market at Dukura on Saturday. It was alleged that the cattle traders were being unlawfully restrained from moving to Balijoda market and that there was an unhealthy competition between the two Grama Sasans. The Collector decided that the new cattle market held at Dukura on Saturday should be stopped, but the opposite party No. 2 may have the cattle market on the weekly market days at Dukura, that is, on Tuesday and Friday. The order of the Collector is purported to have been made in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 109 of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964 (vide Annexure 2). Thereafter the State Government of Orissa by a telegram dated 21-4-1979 granted stay of operation of the Collector's order in Annexure 2. Ultimately the State Government decided that both the cattle markets at Balijoda and Dukura may run side by side on Saturday (vide Annexure 3). The petitioner challenges the order of the State Government as illegal and without jurisdiction,
3. In the counter filed by opposite party No. 2 it is maintained that the cattle market at Balijoda came into being for the first time in the year 1968 and that the cattle market at Dukura has been functioning on each Saturday for the last many years. It is also contended that the Collector did not adjudicate the dispute under Section 146 of the Act and passed the order in Annexure 2 in exercise of his powers under Section 109 of the Act without affording an opportunity to the opposite party No. 2 of being heard in the matter. It is accordingly urged that the Collector's order was illegal and without jurisdiction and that the State Government being the supreme authority in the matter of allocation of public properties to Grama Panchayats are competent to issue administrative directions and were perfectly justified in issuing the directions as per Annexure 3.
4. When the case was listed for admission on 14-12-1979 the learned Addl. Government Advocate undertook to file an affidavit indicating the provisions of the Statute under which the State Government exercised their power to interfere with the Collector's order in Annexure 2. Although sufficient opportunity was given, no such affidavit was filed.
5. It is common ground that there was a dispute touching the finance of the petitioner and opposite party No, 2 as contemplated under Section 146 (1) (a) (ii) of the Act and an appeal against the decision of the Collector lies to the Revenue Divisional Commissioner under Section 146 (2) of the Article The powers and functions of the Zilla Parishad having devolved on the Collector after abolition of the Parishad he was competent to decide the dispute under Section 146 (1) (a) (ii) of the Act. The power to adjudicate a dispute under Section 146 of the Act is quasi-judicial in nature whereas the power exercisable under Section 109 of the Act is purely administrative in nature. The distinction between a quasi judicial and a pure administrative decision lies in the mode or manner in which the opinion on the basis of which the act is done by the authority in exercise of its discretion is formed. The decision would be quasi-judicial of in reaching that decision the authority is required first to ascertain certain facts by means of evidence and is then free to take such action as it may think fit on the facts so ascertained. In such a case the authority must consider the representations and objections of the parties affected and give them an opportunity to adduce and examine the evidence. On the other hand, the decision would be purely administrative if in taking that decision the authority is free to pass its opinion on whatever material it thinks fit and howsoever obtained in the course of its executive functions or derived from the evidence at an enquiry, if there is any.
6. The Collector did not exercise his powers under Section 146 of the Act to adjudicate the dispute and passed the order in Annexure 2 in exercise of his power under Section 109 of the Act and that too without giving an opportunity to opposite party No. 2 of making any representation in the matter. Thus, the order in Annexure 2 was made in violation of the principles, of natural justice. The State Government also passed the order in Annexure 3 without affording an opportunity to the petitioner of making any representation in the matter. Hence both the orders in Annexures 2 and 3 cannot be sustained in law.
7. We allow the writ application, quash the orders in Annexures 2 and 3 and call upon the Collector of Mayurbhanj to decide the dispute in accordance with the provisions of Section 146 of the Act within a period of two months hence. Until the matter is finally decided under Section 146, the opposite party No. 2 may hold the cattle market at Dukura on the weekly market days, that is, on Tuesday and Friday and not on Saturday. Parties to bear their own costs.
N.K. Das, J.