Vs.

Judges: A.M. AHMADI CJI, M.M. PUNCHHI, K. RAMASWAMY, S.P. BHARUCHA, S. SAGHIR AHMAD, K. VENKATASWAMI & K.T. THOMAS, JJ.

Date of Judgment: Mar 18, 1997

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

Section 5 (6), 28 –

Section 5 (6) of the Act is valid and constitutional but held that where a question involves the interpretation of a statutory provision or rule in relation to Constitution, proviso to section 5 (6) will automatically apply and the matter will be referred by chairman to a Bench of two members, one of whom will be a judicial member and vires of statutory provision or rule will never arise for adjudication before a single member Bench or a Bench which does not consist of a judicial member and so construed, Section 5 (6) will no longer be susceptible to charges of being unconstitutional.

Held –

It has also been contended before us that even in dealing with cases which are properly before the Tribunals, the manner in which justice is dispensed by them leaves much to be desired. Moreover, the remedy provided in the parent statutes, by way of an appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution, is too costly and inaccessible for it to be real and effective. Furthermore, the result of providing such a remedy is that the docket of the Supreme Court is crowded with decisions of Tribunals that are challenged on relatively trivial grounds and it is forced to perform the role of a First Appellate Court. We have already emphasised the necessity for ensuring that the High Courts are able to exercise judicial superintendence over the decisions of Tribunals under Article 227 of the Constitution. In R.K. Jain’s case, after taking note of these facts, it was suggested that the possibility of an appeal from the Tribunals on questions of law to a Division Bench of a High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the Tribunal falls, be pursued. It appears that no follow-up action has been taken pursuant to the suggestion. Such a measure would have improved matters considerably. Having regard to both the afore-stated contentions, we hold that all decisions of Tribunals, whether created pursuant to Article 323A or Article 323B of the Constitution, will be subject to the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the particular Tribunal falls.

We may add here that under the existing system, direct appeals have been provided from the decisions of all Tribunals to the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. In view of our above-mentioned observations, this situation will also stand modified. In the view that we have taken, no appeal from the decision of a Tribunal will directly lie before the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution; but instead, the aggrieved party will be entitled to move the High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution and from the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court the aggrieved party could move this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. (Para 93 & 94)