The legislator's goals in establishing quasi-judicial authorities in municipalities

Abstract

Quasi-judicial authorities, technical information and specialized knowledge play a significant role in resolving disputes. Supervisory authorities in municipalities are quasi-judicial commissions that are formed in order to achieve the interests of municipalities more quickly and to supervise the principles of urban planning, construction, architecture and urban texture, prevent non-compliance with urban regulations and collect urban revenues and legal fees. Accordingly, examining the causal relationship between the goals of quasi-judicial authorities of municipalities and specific strategies, including codified policymaking and integrated design of laws, the existence of judicial, supervisory and cultural thinking and planning, indicates the organizational excellence of municipalities, which leads to the results of improving the quality of commissions and promoting satisfaction. As an innovation, it should be stated that, given the challenges raised, it seems that attaching municipal commissions to judicial authorities is closer to the right in every respect; Because in this way, the benefits of the commissions and their patronage are preserved and the judicial, supervisory, etc. challenges are also eliminated. In such a way that the courts of law have the ability to intervene in these cases as arbitration or to ensure the rights of the people in the commissions by employing an expert or experts in this field. On the other hand, the municipality is a quasi-governmental institution and faces problems in reviewing the objections with its votes in the Administrative Court of Justice. Also, the municipality can also choose arbitration as a compromise between the parties or alternative methods of resolving disputes, including conciliation, mediation, etc., which also have a jurisprudential background; a process that we witness in Iranian arbitration and international law. In addition to this, the issue of objections to votes and, in addition, the interference of civil liability of individuals, which can be raised in courts of justice, and the liability of the municipality in dilapidated places, which in some cases causes the courts of justice and quasi-judicial authorities to be in the same channel (Article 122 of the Civil Code, Article 55 of the Municipal Law, Article 333 of the Civil Code), is eliminated. It should be noted that assuming the acceptance of the theory in the thesis, the civil liability of the government for the violations of employees and their liability in the Article 5 Commission will not be relevant. In addition, disputes related to other municipal transactions, which are not the subject of the amended Article 38 of the Tehran Municipal Transactions Regulations, as well as disputes related to the validity or effects after the termination and cancellation of the contract, which are the jurisdiction of general courts of law, are equalized by filing claims in the judiciary. Of course, it is necessary to mention that the author does not accept the institution of conciliation and mediation outside the jurisdiction of the court. Rather, the intention is to attach these terms to judicial arbitration and the binding nature of the decisions. Of course, if the actions of the commission are attached to judicial authorities, the possibility of realizing a guarantee of criminal enforcement for serious construction violations is also conceivable.