“The expression ‘Quasi-Judicial Order’ means a verdict in writing which determines and decides contesting issues and question by a Forum other than a Court. The determination has civil consequences.
Explaining the meaning of ‘Quasi-Judicial Body’ in Indian National Congress (I) v. Institute of Social Welfare, (2002) 5 SCC 685 it was held that when any body of persons has a legal authority to determine questions affecting the rights of subjects and a duty to act judicially, such body of persons constitute a Quasi-Judicial Body and decision given by them is a Quasi-Judicial Decision. Further, what differentiates an Administrative Act from the Quasi-Judicial Act is that a Quasi-Judicial Body is required to make an enquiry before arriving at a conclusion. In addition, an Administrative Authority is the one which is dictated by policy and expediency whereas a Quasi-Judicial Authority is required to act according to the Rules.
This Court in Shrimati Ujjambai v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1962 SC 1621 has held that the principles of res judicata equally apply to Quasi-Judicial Bodies. Whenever a Quasi-Judicial Tribunal gives a finding on law or fact, its findings cannot be impeached collaterally or in a second round and are binding until reversed in Appeal or by way of Writ Proceedings. The characteristic attribute of a judicial act or decision is that it binds, whether right or wrong.”
– Hon’ble Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Abdul Kuddus v. Union of India, [Civil Appeal No. 5012 of 2019]