Dr. Vivek Ranjan Biswas and Others vs Union of India and Others

Valmiki J Mehta, J.—It appears that some litigants, and with respect if I may say so some lawyers, in spite of knowing that disputes between the employees of Union of India and the Union of India can only be decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), yet, approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is apposite, at this stage, to refer to para 99 of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India and others, and which reads as under:-

In view of the reasoning adopted by us, we hold that Clause 2(d) of Article 323A and Clause 3(d) of Article 323B, to the extent they exclude the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court under Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution, are unconstitutional. Section 28 of the Act and the "exclusion of jurisdiction" clauses in all other legislations enacted under the aegis of Articles 323A and 323B would, to the same extent, be unconstitutional. The jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts under Articles 226/227 and upon the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is part of the inviolable basic structure of our Constitution. While this jurisdiction cannot be ousted, other courts and Tribunals may perform a supplemental role in discharging the powers conferred by Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution. The Tribunals created under Article 323A and Article 323B of the Constitution are possessed of the competence to test the constitutional validity of statutory provisions and rules. All decisions of these Tribunals will, however, be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the concerned Tribunal falls. The Tribunals will, nevertheless, continue to act like Courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted. It will not, therefore, be open for litigants to directly approach the High Courts even in cases where they question the vires of statutory legislations (except where the legislation which creates the particular Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the concerned Tribunal. Section 5(6) of the Act is valid and constitutional and is to be interpreted in the manner we have indicated.

(Underling & Emphasis added)

A reference to aforesaid para shows that it is the Tribunal which is the Court at first instance and this Court can exercise its powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India only after a judgment is passed by the CAT. In fact, Constitution Bench has said that even if there are questions of vires of statutory legislations in case the disputes are covered by the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), the same have to be decided by the CAT.

Counsel for the petitioners argues that this Court has all powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India because existence of alternative remedy does not prevent the petitioners from approaching this Court.

This argument in my opinion is specious to say the very least inasmuch as the Constitution Bench has made it clear that cases have to be filed in the first instance before the Tribunal constituted under the Act and not before this Court.

In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/- to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Aid Committee. Costs be deposited within a period of two weeks from today. I may note that Registry of this Court is unnecessarily pressurised by certain lawyers to list the matter in the Court in spite of clear cut provisions of the Act and the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar (supra). This I am saying so because the counsel for the petitioners in response to the objection raised by the Registry has filed a two pages note as to how this Court can exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, however, the counsel admits that he has not even read the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar (supra).