Randheer Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Preliminary objection is raised by the Counsel for the respondents that this petition is not maintainable. Admittedly, an application u/s 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act for initiating proceedings for contempt against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 was filed before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal. While exercising powers u/s 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") the Tribunal has dismissed the application. Against the said dismissal, this petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of T. Sudhakar Prasad etc. v. Govt. of A.P. and Ors. [2001 (1) MPJR 1]. He invited attention to Para 17 of the judgment and submitted that such order is not amenable to jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. In Para 17 of the judgment, it is held that the Apex Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India and others, has nowhere held that the orders of the Tribunal holding the contemner guilty and punishing for contempt shall also be subject to judicial scrutiny of High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution in spite of remedy of statutory appeal provided by Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act being available. He submitted that in the light of this judgment, the petition is not maintainable.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that this judgment is not applicable to the present case as the Apex Court has held that wherever order of punishment is imposed, then petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is not maintainable, but where the application is dismissed then this Court will have the jurisdiction to hear the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dismissing the application.

In the judgment of T. Sudhakar Prasad (supra) scope of Section 17 of the Act has been considered and it is held that Section 17 is a piece of legislation by reference and powers of the High Court are conferred upon the Tribunals in the matter of contempt. In view of conferral of powers of the High Court to the Tribunals orders passed u/s 17 of the Act will not be subject-matter of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. It is further held that by virtue of Section 17 of the Act the word "High Court" shall be read as Tribunal. Therefore, we uphold the objection of the respondents and hold that this petition is not maintainable.

Petition is dismissed as not maintainable.