UtiiiMUII b s.^0 ii?siisrt G) IN THE HIGHCOURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.I WRIT PETITION N0. /^J'^ /2006 PETITIONE» RESPQNDENTS ,<^ -^1^' -e^^ ,-".^''/iV ^ ^ »>« Sudesh Paul, ^~ S/o. Late Surendra Paul, Aged about 44 Years, R/o. Tarbahar, Bilaspur (C.G.) VBRSUS ^l. Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi 2. Divisional Railway Manager, South East Central RaUway, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (CG) ^"3. Sr. Divisional Mechanical Engineer, South Eastem Railway (Now South East Central Railway), Bilaspur (CG) 4. CoUector, Bilaspur (C.G.) 5. Sub-Divisional Officer, Bilaspur (C.G.) . 6. TahsUdar, BUaspur (C.G.) 'WTRrt PBTITIPN UNDBR .ARTXCLE _ 226/227 OF THE COMSTITUTION OF IWDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRn' m HTATURE OF CERTIORAfia:, MANDAMUS PROMIBITIOW AND OTHER SmTABLE WRIT OR WRITS. DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS. ORDER OR ORDERS: ^y^ ^^^. ><'•' ^'•y i?' The petitioner, above-named, respectfuBy submit as under: most humbly and :s •• XI-HC-22 •3iT^!I'qiI 'is'n?;'sii§?( sfi^ -^f?a. ?^ ^pfRra, 'aiy!'y't<»,'fesray <\ .^.4^.-.^.; A isfc 5fn^iWiiw:^rf?ti ^pfeqh iffqc'f'? fS^ ^'3rf;tP:I3Tlt?t 24,4.2006 hojs Mr, Ashish Shr'ivastava, M.r. Amit Choudhary, Advoca-ta for respondents No.^ Shri ScnJGy Ku. Agcrwaj,| i-iaard. 8y this writ petition und^r Indks the petitione", who was Csntrssl Rai!ways, Bilasour, hojs passed by respondent Nu.3-^r. B-'aspur; ordsr dated 16/1^ Coliector, tsiiaspur gndorder Nc.2 Dsvisiona! Raiiway Manags^ ths Detitiorser havs been ts the appointfflent based on a f4i whereas, Ihe pstitjonsr was communi'iy. The orai prsiirriinQry' obj^c for i^spondents No.2 A 3 is the empioyee df Railways, th4 Cehtrai Administrative Tribunii! Administrat!y®- Tribunai has pdyocate for The petitioner. tsrwSna thb ^tanding Cbunsel •w'th Miss Samta Jain, / \&'3. . . . ^ ' - / ' |Panei Lawyer for the State. .Articfe 226/227-0f the Constitution of ^yorking as Junior Enginee" in SouTh EasT chaltenoed -Hie order dated 3.7.2002 |r. Divisionai Mechonicai Engineer, 5ECR, ^-1-2006 passed by respondent N0,4- ijitea 15/17-2-2006 passed by i^spondent ', SECR, Biksspur, whsreby •tfie ssfvscs-s of (Tstsd on the ground thc* he has secursd ise caste <artificate of Scheduied Tribe, |not the cmdida+e of Scheduled Tribe dbted ^cTion rassed by iaamed STanding Coun^i tt since tiiis is a service matter anci beina petitioner' has i'emedy to appr'oadi the ^ii in the firs+ instence, as the Centro! taeen crsated unrier th® Administroitive [T^^Wt XI-HC-22 "S^ 'tllt<mi1, ®T!1<->'!G, i<a ^ SIi^I^iT T<-ii.di 3n§'?i sb^i«h'nf?g W^I TOHW ^lfttl -^- qiraferah inti?ff •? •fs'zt 7fsR?R ^T 5Tf:(TtT SII^T Tr'ibunals Aci, 1985 to deal wi-jt) service matters, T^erefore, this Court shouid not enteftain this writ pefition. On the o+her hand, tearn^d counsel for +he petitionerargued •tiiat it is trua • at the CentraS Admi^istnitive Tribunai has +he jurisdiction in this rricti'er, but wheri the pj'incipies of ncturol justiee hcye been vioiated, the petitioner has a ryht to approach tiiis Court directiy under Article 226/227 of the Congtit^tion of India, He placed reiicince on -rfie Judgments of tfie Hon'bte Ap^x Court in the maner of Harbanslal Sahnia and anothar V. Indian [Oil Coryn. Lt<i. and others reported in (2003) 2 Supreme Court Case^ 107 and Whiripool Corporotion Versus Regis^rar of Trad« Marks, M^imbai and ethers reported jn (1998) 8 Svyema Court Cases 1. | In HarbcOTsla! Schnia's a^&, the matter for coRSideraTJon bsfore ihe 1-ion ble Apex Court was th<^t whetiier the deaJership of petitioner in petroieum^. products appointed |by Indian Oii Corporation Limited was rightjy canceHed. On facts, t^e Court rsached to +he conciusson that '•ihe arder which weie chiiiien^ecs' wess issued on iprsievMit and non- exisfsnt,grsunds.: The CourT fjjr'ifier held thoT 'i'n appropt'igte csses, in ^jite of availabilitv of -fhe alte^ exereiss its writ jurisdictim «] 'naiive femecfy', 'ffie High Couft may sfill at least thrne contingeneies: (i) where ihe writ petitionseeks enfvrc^ment ofany o-f 1he rundamen'fal righfs; (ii) where there ie •f-aihifs of p^incipies of naUii'ai Justice; oir (iii) wheps [^ifeil XI-HC-22 sii^i ^r f?;ri3;3iit?I ^)^fi^ ^firt '3^'•:?ITqR:P!,'®TfteIIO,i°i(Yli+l'i<. fq^y' snt^'FRnwafta fft •warrtcn fhe orders or pi-oceedings arw m Act is chal'ienged'. Th'.s Judgment was pBSse|j •me i-ion'bis Apex Court in me Hon'bie Apex Court held ttiat "|; of fhe Consti'hition is plefwry i^ prMision of Ihe Constitution. Court "ot Qr.ty for sssuing w^ mendamus, prohibition, ^uo- of any of 'lhe Fundamentat Cffnstitutmn but slw for "eny diacwnon TO enteffain. or not r4 Caur* hcs smpo^d upon itsei'f , an sffecf'ive and efficacioue ra^ not narmaily exercise its juf'isdji been consistEntiy held by ihe ^ iar leessr miwe connngencies, fiied for lise snfsfcsmenf of ihere has been a violation of ^fri the ardef or procsedings we wf^t an Act is ckallenged. ^iolly wfthotif juriedic+ion or iiie viivs of •A' 'WlferiiTSTItRJf'9 fe^ T'SRZR ^'srfitWSiRW phcing reiicnce on airiier deciston of Imat+er of Whiripool's case in which the '\the prefogalive writs under Article 226 . noture and is not limited by einy other Tfiis power can be exercised by ihe HSgh' \'jts in the napjrs of habeas corpus. f*<p ca'id certiorari for ihe enfofcement fpights coritoir^d- in Part ni of We \o#ier purpei^". Tae High Cffuft has a enieiTain a wrif pefifieifi. But the l-iigh ^"rajn resrncTKins or,e of y-ihsch is 'snoT •,f Ifsec/y is wastobls. itie 1-iiah Csurt woiild But thg altetnatiii'e remedy has- ^rsme Court f.ot to operate as a bar in ^me/y, whsre ihe wrif peiirian hae been sf tfse Func&a.vsntal Rights or where ^!e principle of nalural justice or where ^otly wilhwt jwisdictwn w ihe vitvs of juf'isdlction. n6fnei}i af?y e [^^fst ^^^^ s?r XI-HC-22 sg^i^ir K.-U* STi^I '^TTi^' yi^ •i 's^ •<tH\w^, tS-Aww.^viwy. SIT^T'FRHSSR'(rf?!T •^ thbt The above decisions cit®< facts are not opplicable to th< Csntrai SovsrnmeRt by +hs Ac Tribunais Act, 1985 ond ynde| Tribunai hove been cuthorize< varioud categories of persons petitioner has not disputed are siso being taken up by th( bar. Ssc-tson 28 of the Act Con3titu11on Bench of the i-ii Chandra .Kumar V. Unton of Supt^me Courr 1125 end the of Ariicie S23A anct' dauss 4 e^ch^ds #se jurisdictisn of Af; under Articks 226/227 & 32\ 5ect'or. 28 of ihe Act arsd Ifk ai-her iegisiaiione enacred uns^ wsi.iid, ts ths same sx*en\ conferred upon the Hiah Cou/t Supreme Court under Articl^ invioksbk basic struc'ture of cannot be oustecl, othsr ^ cni<itn<ft-i "qm?jf -^ ^t^ ^fSR^re ^;3lf;W3iT^I by lecrned counssi for the petitioner on present cdse, foc the reasiins •tftat the :fr No.3 of 85 enacted the Administrative Section 14 itie Centn»i Administrativs f to deai with Itie service mati'ers of ^pecified therein and the counsei for -Hie sepvice matters of Raijway employees Tribunal. Section 28 of the Ac!' creates ca.me uo 'for consicieration before the (n'ble Aoex Court in the mnttsr of L. Cn<lw and othws reported in AJK 1997 IConstitutioFi Bench heid -Hiat '"Ciause 2(d) (d) of Artscie 3238, to tfie sxtent Ifsey ?e Hiah Courts and ihe Suorsme Csurf \of Ifie Constitutwn. are unconstitutiwal. ^ "exclusion of jurisdiction" ctauses m alt 'r ihe cieyis of Ari-icies 323A and 3238 be uncor.stitutiwial. Jfis Jurisdtctien 'ts under Ariides 226/227 aneS upon the 32 of •rtie Constitution is paff of ffie our Const'lution. Wiile ihis jurisdiction "ourts and Tribunais may perform a [Tft&^S^ • ~""^:.v^" XI-HC-22 ^E? -'-IWM'i, ^iTtTPTS, 'raWHgT 'sii^rqn R;ii.ch ani^r sbt<i<*'HfftT si^i^RiTwofeci s" sittiplemen'tai' role in disdiargin^ ifie powers Canferred tiy Arl'icles 226/227 and 32 of rtie Conslsilvtion. Tfse Tnbunals ereated under Articie 323A and Articte 323B p complei-e ro test fhe consfifuridpai vaiielify of sniiutory provisions ansi rjles^ Al! decisi'ons of •Shsse scrutiay before a Qwision Be^ Jurisdiction the mncerned "eysrff'.eiess, confinue to act SIK^ #ierefore, be open for litigant^ sven in cases where ihey ques\ (excepf where ine iegisiation it^ cheliengsd) by overtooid'ng the SectScn 5 (6) of ihs Act is interpfvted in the manner weha\^. Wrf'ffqh •WTCif ^ fe^t ^7 3if:a>T sn^i itie ConsiThstion arefossessed of ihe ffjbunais will, howsvsr, be subject to 'tfA of the High Court wilhvi whose T'ribunal falls. Jhe Triounalg witl, Courts af first instonce in respect of the areas of 'tow for which •th^y have been consiiluted. It wiil not to djrectly approad-i ihe High Courts ion Ihe vires of slvivtvry legishfiens 'iich creates ihe pariicular Tribunai is furisdiction of the concsrnsd Tribursl. valid and donsi'itutioiw/ arid Ss i'o be intsrptvted' TTiersfors, as per direjct decision in connection with •t+ie Administns+ive Tribunais Ac+, 1^85, +he Won'bie Apex Court has held tha* tiie Tribunais shaii contiriuel *o cc* as Courts of first insTance and iT wili not; thepefore, be open +o +^e ii+igants +o ciirec+ly approach the 1-ligh Courts. even in cases where [t+iey question the yires of statutory iegislation by overiooking the jur|sdiction of the concemed Tribunal. r :' ' [^^rt ~=f XI-HC-22 3II^I^iT [ti-ii.di anfw WTWHfef Roshan/- ^f ^ '3'^ •^wivitl, Ejiti)ti'l(o, ft^i'yy t{|i-i?(T w<nw •3:n^[?CTWdft(T -4,- When -i+ie Centro! Admtiistrative Tribunal has been created speeiaiiy for expeditious dispo^ai of serwce matters of the yarious categories of perspns specifi^d +herein, thsrefore, by-passing the Centrai Administra+ive Tribunai (pirectiy'riiis writ petition has.been fiied. Hencs, I affi bf the opinion thct ^dmjnistpatjye Tribunai.Jabaipui} The petition ss disposed of ^iqfepfn TITCRJT •? ft%t 'dw^re ^3!paTT3ii^r [ifiis writ petiTiori is not mai'ntajnabie opd the petitioner is directed to app^roach, in the first instcOTce.-tiie CCTitral , who has junsdiction over Ihis o.rea, cccordingly. Consequently, M.(W.)P. Hio.1589/06 and I.A.No.3831/06 aiso stand disposed of. Ceri-ifted copy <as p®rrutes Sdf- L.C. Bhadoo Judge [^^fa^ f^