Delhi High Court: Tribunals to have Jurisdiction in Entrusted Matters before High Courts

Must Read

US Court Orders Iran To Pay $1.4 BN in Damages To Missing Former FBI Agent’s Family

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia ordered Iran to pay in total $1.45 bn to...

Onus on Petitioner To Show Unassailable Facts: Delhi High Court

In the case of Rhythm Jain v National Testing Agency, the Delhi High Court mentioned that in such petitions the...

Under-Trial/Convicted Persons Do Not Have Absolute Right To Parole in Light of Coronavirus : Bombay High Court

An important judgment was given by the Division Bench of the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court concerning the...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Asks State To File Reply To Examine Whether Privacy Rights of an Individual Can Be Violated by Issuing an Executive...

A Writ Petition was instituted by an individual for violation of his fundamental rights by the State before the...

Bombay High Court Allows Export of Pending Consignment of Onions in Respect of Which Shipping Bills Have Been Generated Before Notification of the Ban

A writ petition challenging the notification dated 14th September 2020 to ban the export of onions was filed by...

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding...

Follow us

Justice Jyoti Singh delivered the judgment in the case of Prabhat Ranjan Deo v. Union Public Service Commission. It relied on an authoritative decision of the Supreme Court. It states that one can approach the High Courts when there is a challenge to the parent statute of any Tribunal.

Brief facts of the case

The Petitioner questions the appointment of Respondent No. 4 as DGP, State of Haryana. There is a doubt on the empanelment, as well as the appointment by the UPSC dated 18.02.2019.

The Supreme Court did not entertain his Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. It directed the Petitioner to “approach the jurisdictional High Court if so advised.” Hence, he filed this writ petition.

Respondent’s Arguments

The Respondents object the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. They submit that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition and stated that IPS is an All India Service. The Petitioner is under the jurisdiction of Central Administrative Tribunal (“the Tribunal”). The Court of ‘first instance’ for ‘service matters’ in light of Section 14(1) of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (‘the Act’) is the Tribunal.

The respondents relied on the decision in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261 among others.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The Counsel for Petitioner states that the petition talks about the liberty granted by the Supreme Court. Thus it is not open to the Respondents to raise any objection to its maintainability.

Existence of an alternate remedy is not a bar in entertaining a petition by a Writ Court. Instead, it is a rule of self-imposed limitation.

Relying on various judgments, it said that, the decision to entertain or not to entertain an action under a writ jurisdiction is a decision to be taken by the High Court on examination of the facts and circumstances.

Court’s Observations

The Court examined Article 14(1) of the Act and noted that Section 14(1)(b)(i) provides for the Tribunal to have jurisdiction in all service matters of All India Service. Section 3(q) of the Act defines ‘Service Matters’. It covers all matters relating to conditions of service and also includes matters about tenure, confirmation, seniority, promotion etc.

Furthermore, the Constitutional Bench decision in L. Chandra Kumar vs Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261 was taken into account. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunals are competent to hear matters entrusted to them. They will act as only Courts of ‘first instance’ in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted. However, the Tribunals cannot entertain a challenge to the parent statute, which created it. The Court stated that “Tribunal, which is a creature of an Act, cannot declare that the very Act to be unconstitutional.” It is only in this case that the High Court concerned may be approached.

Also, all decisions of the Tribunal are subject to scrutiny by a Division Bench of the concerned High Court. The High Court exercises its power of Judicial Review.

The Supreme Court further observed that the jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts under Articles 226/227. The Court, as a result of this, declared that this is a part of the inviolable basic structure of the Constitution. However, the other Courts and Tribunals may perform a supplemental role in discharging the powers conferred on the High Court.

The Court clarified that the Tribunal is not an ‘alternative’, but is the ‘only’ Forum available to the Petitioner. Therefore, the Petitioner does not have a choice not to approach the Tribunal for a remedy. The reason is that the Court does not have the discretion to entertain this petition.

Court’s Decision

In the present case, the Supreme Court’s direction to approach the High Court is to be read with the judgment in L. Chandra Kumar.

Given the judgement in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC and Section 14(1) read with Section 3(q) of the Act, the present petition is not maintainable in this Court. Hence, it is dismissed.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

US Court Orders Iran To Pay $1.4 BN in Damages To Missing Former FBI Agent’s Family

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia ordered Iran to pay in total $1.45 bn to the Levinson family in punitive...

Onus on Petitioner To Show Unassailable Facts: Delhi High Court

In the case of Rhythm Jain v National Testing Agency, the Delhi High Court mentioned that in such petitions the onus to prove the facts...

Under-Trial/Convicted Persons Do Not Have Absolute Right To Parole in Light of Coronavirus : Bombay High Court

An important judgment was given by the Division Bench of the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court concerning the constitutionality of Rule 19 of...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Asks State To File Reply To Examine Whether Privacy Rights of an Individual Can Be Violated by Issuing an Executive...

A Writ Petition was instituted by an individual for violation of his fundamental rights by the State before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The...

Bombay High Court Allows Export of Pending Consignment of Onions in Respect of Which Shipping Bills Have Been Generated Before Notification of the Ban

A writ petition challenging the notification dated 14th September 2020 to ban the export of onions was filed by the Exporters Association before the...

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding that mens rea is an...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @ Balli v State. The bench...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -