|Bir.aiffl^t»^-)CQ&IN>^.»8NCA3fDI^A^ WRtTiPETmONNO. 1. RBSPONDBNTS .^y^ ^fMiy '^'^^' /3Q06 Mukesh Paul, S/0 LateSurendra Paul, - Aged about 36 years, SR/o. Tarbahar,Bilaspur(0W3.) VBJRSILS 4. 5. 6. Union Qf India, through Secretary, Miaistry of Railways, NewDeIhi Divisional Railway Manager, Soyth East Central Raitway, Bilaspur Division, Silaspur (CG) Sr. Divisional Mechanical Engmeer, South Eastem Railway (Now South East Central Railway), BUaspur (CG) CoHector, Bilaspur (C.G.) Sub-DivisionalOfficer, BilaspurfC.G.) .^' Tahsildar, BiIaspur(C.G-) % VttStf ^ .?.PENiTK^:'^ICi!U^'.':'-AimC ^^^^^^^^ cass' SSy »^;ai^''W^^S'l^-yv^W3SH^l:'^^^^ KMDiE^rtMR^iaei^raQRXi^^^eMfiBAinasos^i^ o<fiBBR^-si?ia^ia::;.:1i(n®n^^^^^::'WTO^ lE»RBX?nO»S.OR3MatOR,OIffi>KRS; : ; ' '^~:: •• K-^^^^^ The petitfoner, abcwe-riamed, most Humbiy and respectfi-iUy sufamitasynder: XI-HC-22 ~T5[ -i<|<1|M^ ^flKH'Ke, iracTR ss 3!TS?i'^I K-fi.di sn^r WRWHft^T /- ^l'iS.iU. f^^T' 3TI^?I TOITO:'Bf^T 24.4.2006 Mr. Amit Choudhary, ^ AdyocatB for respondents No.; Shri Sonjay Ku. Agorwai, qii<'iy]<ilf v.MvS ^ 'fe^t ^?3rf5gil3il^[ Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, ^dwcate for the petitioner. Heacd. 8y thjs writ petitionundjerArticie 226/227 of the Constitution of India The peTitione", who wds Centrai Railwcys, Bilasour, h< possed by respondenl' No.3-S Bllasour; order dated 16/1' Loiiector, Biiaspur and order No.2 &ivisionai Raiiway Mcnage| the appointment based on d fo|l petitioner was RO+ the candida't' TTie orai preiiminary obj fer respcndsnts No.2 & 3, Is tj' the empioyee of Railwsys, thj Centmi AdmJnjstratjye Tr Administratiye Tribunci has •tanding Couna;! wjth M'ss 5amta Jain, &3. Pcne! Lcwyer for The State. |working as Helper (Khaiasi) in South EasT ^s challen9ed ths order doited 3.7.2002 |r. Sivisioriai Atechanicai Ensineer, SECR, '-1-2006 passed by respondent Nb.4- |ated 15/17-2-2006 passed by i^spondent |r, SECR, Biiaspur, whereby •ri'isssryi<»sef +he osititioner have been ternjir,atetl on the ground that hs has secur&d Ise caste certificate of 08C; whereas,fhe of QBC comniuni'ty. ection raised by ieamed Standing Counsei •,a* since This !s a ^rvics iTiatter caid being ti^e petitioner has i*emedy to approach -rtie ribuilial in The first insftnce; as ttie Central been created undsr the Adminis+ratiye [Tfti^ ^Ka^ ST XI-HC-22 's^r'.^raRra, 'B^frms, 'fewa an^i^ EpiR73n^T ^tihT^rfitT 'ST 31I^[?^IWHfer .^.. Tribunals Act, 1985+0 deal with| should not entertain this writ On +he o+her hand, iearne'il it is true that the Central ^ This rriCfter.but when tiie pr| yioiated, the petitioner has o. rig^i Articie 226/227 of the judgments of the Hon'bie ,Ji[ Sahaia and another V. Indian (2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases] Regislrar of Trad®Marks, Supreme Couri' Cases 1. In Harbcnshi Sahnia's +he Hon'ble Aoex Court was tha+ petroieuni products appointed Adminiistrative rigi^t Constitultion pep< £)i! casle pightiy cmcelted. On facts, th^ 'me order which was chailengJf existsnt grsunds.' TTie Cour* fu^ ssii'e of availabiliiv of ihe alteria exsrass its writ Jurisdictmn in jfj^ writ Qetft/cn seeks enfnrce^ (ii) whers ihere is failurs of pr.^ alteriaative enforcefssef.t •*l'!)i<-l41-< tiTCRff 4 'fe'zt ^sif^antw ^7^ service mctters. TTierefors, this Ccurt counsel for the pstitioner argued that Tribunal has the jurisdiction in 'ncipies of naturai justice have been to approach this Gourt directly under of India. He piaced reiiance dn the Court in the marrer of Hariscnsia! Corpn. Ltd. and cthars "eported in 107 and Whiripoot Corporation Versus nbai and oth»rs reported in (1998) 8 »ty :, The matter- for consideration before whe'rtier the dealership of petitioner in Indicm Oil Corporation Umited was Court reached to the ci?nc!usion that jj{t3 was ieeuea vn is'f'eievcini- and non- u^ther he!d thfl* 'in appropriate casss, in liaative remedv, fhe Hiah Court mav stjll \af least thfee contingeneies: (i) where '^sent of afiY of the fundwtental rights; \!cipiss of natura' jusiice; or (ai) where [«^fe^ • XI-HC-22 3TI^I'?i1 h-Uch 3^1 aniw'H ?f ^r '?^';:?irai5f!T, aTil'y'is, isKnwy i^ "wiwaiTrt^' an^i^RireR^ftg -3>. ^e orders of proceedings are an TT1is Judgment was pas^ •Hie Hon'bie Apex Court in th^ matter of Whiripooi's aise in whieh ine Hon'bie Apex Court heia 1+iat of the Constilvtion is p!enafy\ provision of Ifie Constinition. Couft not only for issuing manciamus. siwhibition. auo-we^ of am of the Fundanental ^rafer'ih'iwrcif •q •fetzt i? SlPgq 311^1 whoffy wtliiout jurjedicfion or ihe vifee of sd placing reikBics on eariter decisiori of tf-,s prerogative writs under Artsde 226 in rtature and i3 not limifed by wiy oiher This power can be exerased by the High writs m •the nafjre of hobecs corpus, •ranto wid cerl'iorari for •tfve en'fsreement Rights ccn-hsmed m Part 127 of •the Cwistitutwn Iwt also fsr "m esiscrenon ro entertain or not /-'ourt has impossd upor, stsslf cn effecfive and sfficacious \y ether purpose". Vne High Court hws a \fo enrer'fain a wrn petinon. Burihe High \cs,"tain rssrrictions one of whi'ch is ihat sf Vemedy ,'s available. ihe Hieih Caur' would ntit normaffy exercise jts jui'\sdiction. But the altemative'remedy has been consistentfy held by ifi^ ai Seasr ihrvse contmgencies, fsled for ff,e snforcament oif l^iere 'has been a violaficsn of ifie order or proceedings are\ an Act is chalienged. Supreme Cowt not to operatB as d bar m nameiy, whetw ihe wrif pefirion 'nas been any cf ihe Fur.damenta! Rjghts esr i^sers fhe yfifsap/e of riaiuf'al justice or whwe whotly wi'fhout Junsdictmn w the vires of [Tft^ ^Ha^ 1 XI-HC-22 SD^fEET fsFiicRan^T W1WCT53 T- ^ '^raRra, ^?NTis, IstMiyy ^J wtiiar s!i»iirai The oboye decisions cit^d by learned counsel for the petitioner' on facts are not applicabie to Th Csntra! ©ovemmentby the A^t No.3of85enacted 1+ie Administrative Tribunais Act, 1985 aid un44>1 Section 14 -rtie Centrai Administrative Tribunai have been authoriz^d to deai with the service maners of Varioua categories of peraon^ petitioner 'no.s not disputed tl^at service matters of Railway employees are a!so being taken up by Th^ Tribund!. Section 28 of •riie Act creates bar, Section 28 of the Act Constitution Bench of the H^n'bie Apex Court in -i+ie motter of L. Chandra Kumar V. Unien ef Suppeme Courr 1128 ond •the undef Articks 226/227 »32![ woutd, to She same exten Supreme Court under Ai'ticl^ inyoiabie bassc struc'h.'re of\ ^OTfeFftt'qPRTf •?'fe^t •rfSR?R •^sifigtfan^t present case, for •rtie reasons that ihe specified therein an<l 'the counsei for the came uo tor> considcration betore the India and othws h^orted in /iIR 1997 Constitution Sench heid that "Clause 2(a) sf Article 323A and Clauss ^(d) sf Articie 323B, to Ihs extent -thsy exclude ihe jurisdiction of •ffie High Csurts cmd ifse Suprews Court of ifie Constitutmn, are unconstitutional. Section 28 of ihe Act and tf\e "excli'sion of JurisdictJon" ckwses in all oiher legislatmns enescred un^er ihe asgis or Ari-icks S23A and 3238 ', be unccnstitJtional. Ths Jurisdiction conferrvd upon ihe High Cou^i's under Arficles 226/227 and upon ihe 32 of ihe Consti-tution is peirt of 'riie our Consti.tu-tion. While ihis jurisdiction ccsnnof Sse eus'tsd, cther ^ourts wid Tribunais may perfor/n a ['cft^.'^fig4 XI-HE-22 StI^I'q? - R;-<W .OT^s ^ii!ct) ^^ •^ '3^ '"lll'lll(?l'i<, ®fl1<l'is,facll'M'lt til*«'TT6RlSrai ruiss. All dsdssGns of fhss^ Jurisdictmn the concemed '?)N?l'lil-< t|w<'ff'?'feiz!' iF.slWK ^r sifigir sn^i suppiementaf fvle in dischar^/ng the fiowers confertwd b^ Ar'ticles 226/227 and 32 of ihe Co^slitutwn. The Tribunals crsated under Articfe 323A and .4rtick,323E^of the Consti-fvtion are fsossessed of ihe complefe ro fesr the consfifu^onat vciiidity of sfafufory ptwisions and Tribisnals will. howsvsr. be subject to sctvtiny before a £>ivismn Qpneh of ihe High Court withm whoss Tribunal falls. The Tribuna's will, f.ever'theiess, Continue to cct /(ke Courts offirs-t mslwsce sn respect of 1'he arsss of hw for which l^iey have been constituted. It wil! not, ifierefpre, be open for- litigaf^s to directfy approach -the High Ceurts even in cases where th«y qu^stion ihe vires of s1w!iu1wry kyshtiwis (excepf where #ie legislafion chaffenged) by over'looking tht Sect'tGn 5 (6) of ihe Act i. \which cr'eates me pari-icuSaf Tribunal rs Jun'sdictjon of Ihs concerned Tribunal. » ^ valid and ceinstiivfionai and is fo bs Administrative Tribunals Act, willnot, therefope; he open to Courts, even in cases wherel iegisletion by oyerlooking •i+ie j4 intet'pt'eted in the manner we h^ve interppeted." 'Thersfors, as per di^-ect decision in connection wi+h the 1S85, me Won'bie Apex Court has heid ?hc? The Ti'ibur.ais shaii conTinije Tc CCT as CourTs of firs* insrancs and iT p+ie !itiaants to dinectly approach the 1-ligh 1+sey question the vires of statutory •isdiction of t+ie concerned Tribunal. [T^^f^ XI-HC-22 sn^t^ii ft-fi+. sn^r wqN"Hf??r Roshan/- ^ ^y 'S^? ••'ilAlld^, eifll'M'ie, 1Si<lll«>l< 311^1 TOIKR ^ifttr t^la When the Central speeially for expeditious dv catsgories of persons spe< Csntra! Administrative Triburiai Hence, I 00-1 of the opinion the petittoner is directed to Administratiye Tribunai, Jaba) The petition !s dispo^cj Consequently, M.(W.)^. stemd dissosed of. Ayministrativs Tribunal hss been erested ^posal of ser'viee matters of the various jified therein, therefors, by-passing ths jr^ai directiy wiis writ petition has been filed. rtT|at this wriT petitton is not mcinftiinobte ond ^ipproach,in •riie first instance; the Centrai Ipur, who has Jurisdiction over this aren. of sccording!y. No.1588/06 and I.A.No.3832/06 aiso 'ertified eopy as per r^ +]<<[<•)<<I-i •RIlRff •?fs^S <F=t*ZI< i?3|POT3T!^I Sdf- L.C. Bhadoo Judge [Tfr^ ^f<a&i