Mobile View
Main Search Forums Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 9 docs - [View All]
Article 226 in The Constitution Of India 1949
The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
C.P. Kalra vs Air India on 8 April, 1993
L. Chandra Kumar vs The Union Of India & Ors on 2 December, 1994
Article 136 in The Constitution Of India 1949

User Queries
      
Central India Law Quarterly
Writ Petition And Government
WRIT PETITION AND GOVERNMENT ~ DR. R. B. DUBEY· 1. This article seeks to examine whether at the instance of the State a writ can be filed against a private person who has no publlc duty to be performed? Fortunately the Supreme ~ourt has resolved that the Adminstrative Tribunals, which have been established under Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, will function not as a substitute of the High Court but will supplement the High courts.' This has also been held by the Supreme Court that the power of superintendence of High Court over the Tribunals will remain as it is, and now writ can be filed in the High Court against the final decision (determination) of the Tribunals subject to the condition that such writ must be heard by and decided by a bench of the High Court. After reading the decision of the Supreme court in L. Chandra Kumar case- the following question arises :- 1. The aggrieved party whose fundamental right(s) are vio- lated by the State can avail remedy from the Adminstravite service Tribunals only and after the establishment of the Tribunals he can not invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court given Under Article 226 of the Indian Constitutional Law. 2. As the service Tribunals have been given a supplemental role in discharging the powers conferred by Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. This is apparent from the reading of L. Chandra Kumar's decision. From this it Reader in Law, R.D.VV Jabalpur 1. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and others, AIR 1997, SC 1125. 444 CENTRAL INDIA LAW QUARTERLY 2001 follows that the High court has still extra ordinary original jurisdiction, and when the original jurisdiction is not available to the State against private individuals then how can the State resort the original jurisdiction in the garb of that all decisions of the tribunals are subject to close examination of judicial review of the High Court. It is here pertinent to note that under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the High court is not prescribed as the appellate court against the decisions of the Tribunals. It, is therefore, 'clear that the Government can not invoke the original writ jurisdiction of the High Court against the decision of the tribunals. Obviously the tribunal's order can be challenged by invoking jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constituion. As far as the jurisdiction of the High Court which is given under Article 227 is concerned it is quite supervisory, which is quite limited to examine the tribunal should function within the powers and jurisdiction as has been given to it under relevant Act, and does not extent to correct the error if any crept in the Tribunal's order/judgement. 2. If we look at the origin and development of writs and against whom these writs can be issued, it shall be that these writs can be filed issued against the State/Public individuals having public duty to be discharged for the State under any Statute and in case of any failing in dicharge in public duties writ or writs can be issued by the High Court udner Article 226 of the Constitution. Vol XIV WRIT PETITIONAND GOVERNMENT 445 3. This can also be inferred from the intention of the Parliament in providing a provision in the Administrative Tribunals Act i.e. Section 27 thereof that the order of the Tribunal is executable as it is the final order of the Government. If this is termed as government order then how the order issued/made by the Government can be challenged by the government itself by filing a writ petition either in the High Court under Article 226 or Article 32 before the Supreme Court by filing writ petition. From the careful study of the history of writs it appears that the writ petitions were filed against the mightly people or state for the protection of basic/ fundamental rights and not vice-versa. ******** In the above context the following cases may be seen:- 1. S. P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1987, SC, 387. 2. S. P. Gupta V. Union of India, AIR 1982, SC, 149. 3. The Comptrollar v. K.B.S. Jaganath (1986) 1 SLR, 713 SC. 4. Awadesh Pratap Singh V. State of Bihar, AIR 1988, Pat. 227. 5. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1125.