Power of State Public service Commission under article 320:

Dear sir, here is rule 13 of THE UTTAR PRADESH STATE PUBLICSERVICE COMMISSION (REGULATION OF PROCEDURE ACT, 1985)

 (U.P. Act No. 23 of 1985)

Protection of action in good faith

"13.       No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against the Commission, the Chairman the member, the secretary, the Controller of Examinations, the officers or any other persons Deputed to assist the Commission for taking interview or otherwise for anything done purported to be done in good faith in exercise of any powers, duties or functions conferred or assigned by or under the Constitution or this Act or the rules made thereunder. "

I think such provisions are incorporated in allmost all statutes of like nature.

Dear Dr.Tripathi, Thank you for being very resoucefull in the matter. well I completely agree with you with the provisions and as pointed out by you such provisions may be in existence in almost all the States in the Country. Such provisions are there even for the Magistrates etc. But can the Commission frame Rules/Regulations etc under 320 and says that their acrtion can not be challenge in the Court by way of suit howevr illegal it may be? are the acrion of the Commission immune from civil suit like Declaratory/Injunction/Malicious Prosecution and Defamation etc? It is one thing to say that the Commission Members are pretected but it also another thing to say that the action of the Commission can not be challenge by way of civil suit to be determined judicially and according to Law. thank you once again and hope to hear more from you in the matter.

Under our constitutional setup no Act, Rule, Regulation or action can be immune from judicial review. Bar of suits clause is applicable to lower courts only. There can not be a bar on powers of High Courts and Supreme Court. Otherwise will be against basic structure of the constitution.

Dear Dr.Tripathi, as per your UPSPSC Regulations of procedure Act of 1985, Section 13 says that No suit,Prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against the commission, the Chairman the members, the Secretary, the Controller of Examinations, the officers or any other persons deputed to assist.................... under the Constitution or this Act or the rules made thereunder. Now, if the same ACTS  is applicable to the State of Nagaland, do you think Suit for Injunction will lie as we have been discussing? Grateful if you comments on this as i am now about to move the Court. Its better if you send it in my mail box.

Both Mr Vishal and Mr Dixit are right. advise of Mr vishal should be read in the light of judgment provided by Mr Dixit which sumarises the law on the point as under:

"(a) under the Limitation Act no period is advisedly prescribed within which an application for probate, letters of administration or succession certificate must be made;
(b) the assumption that under Article 137 the right to apply necessarily accrues on the date of the death of the deceased, is unwarranted;
(c) such an application is for the Court's permission to perform a legal duty created by a Will or for recognition as a testamentary trustee and is a continuous right which 7 can be exercised any time after the death of the deceased,
as long as the right to do so survives and the object of the trust exists or any part of the trust, if created, remains
to be executed;
(d) the right to apply would accrue when it becomes necessary to apply which may not necessarily be within 3 years form the date of he deceased's death.
(e) delay beyond 3 years after the deceased's death would arouse suspicion and greater the delay, greater would be
the suspicion;
(f) such delay must be explained, but cannot be equated with the absolute bar of limitation; and
(g) once execution and attestation are proved, suspicion of delay no longer operates".