2004 (9) TMI 665 - SC - Indian Laws

Constitutional validity and vires of sub-section (1) of Section 74 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 ( the Act ) - Conditional Legislation vs. Delegated Legislation - Abolition of State Administrative Tribunal - Interference with Judicial Functioning by the Executive - Role of Central Government in Abolishing the Tribunal - Mala Fide Action - HELD THAT - The notification was issued by the Central Government in 1988 and the State Administrative Tribunal was established for the State of Madhya Pradesh. At that time, as per well-settled legal position, decisions rendered by the Administrative Tribunals constituted under the Act of 1985 were final subject to jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. No person aggrieved by a decision of State Administrative Tribunal could approach the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in view of Clause (d) of Article 323A (2) of the Constitution read with Section 28 of the Act of 1985 and the declaration of law in S.P. Sampath Kumar. If, in view of subsequent development of law in L. Chandra Kumar, the State of Madhya Pradesh felt that continuation of State Administrative Tribunal would be one more tier in the administration of justice inasmuch as after a decision is rendered by the State Administrative Tribunal, an aggrieved party could approach the High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India and, hence, it felt that such tribunal should not be continued further, in our opinion, it cannot be said that such a decision is arbitrary, irrational or unreasonable. From the correspondence between the State of Madhya Pradesh and Central Government as well as from the affidavit in reply, it is clear that the decision of this Court in L. Chandra Kumar had been considered by the State of Madhya Pradesh in arriving at a decision to abolish State Administrative Tribunal. Such a consideration, in our opinion, was relevant, germane and valid. It, therefore cannot be said that the decision was illegal, invalid or improper. It was also argued that even if this Court comes to the conclusion that sub-section (1) of Section 74 of the Act of 2000 is intra-vires and constitutional confirming the view taken by the High Court, the impugned action of abolishing State Administrative Tribunal is mala fide and malicious. For this, learned counsel referred to certain press reports wherein it had been alleged that a decision had been taken at the Cabinet Meeting of the State Government to abolish State Administrative Tribunal as the Chief Minister and all the Ministers were of the view that State Administrative Tribunal had granted stay in many transfer matters. The attempt on the part of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the action has been taken by the State of Madhya Pradesh because of adverse verdicts by the State Administrative Tribunal. In other words, according to the appellants, action of abolishing State Administrative Tribunal was taken because of judicial orders passed by the Tribunal which was not liked by the State Government. Such an action, submitted the learned counsel, cannot be sustained in law. Thus, from the correspondence between the State of Madhya Pradesh and the Central Government and from various letters and communications and also from the decision which has been taken by the Cabinet, it is clear that the State Government took into account a vital consideration that after the decision of this Court in L. Chandra Kumar, an aggrieved party could approach the High Court, the object for establishment of the Tribunal was defeated. In our opinion, in the light of the facts before the Court, it cannot be said that the decision to abolish State Administrative Tribunal taken by the State of Madhya Pradesh can be quashed and set aside as mala fide. It was finally submitted that even on merits, the action of abolition of State Administrative Tribunal was unwarranted and uncalled for. For that, the counsel invited our attention to facts and figures and stated that it is not that all the cases decided by the State Administrative Tribunal reached the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. In most of the cases dealt with by the State Administrative Tribunal, the parties accepted the orders of the Tribunal. It is only in few cases that the aggrieved party public servant or government approached the High Court. It was also stated that no survey has been made by the State. No reasons have been recorded why continuance of Tribunal was not necessary. There was non-application of mind to this very important aspect and on that ground also, the action deserves to be set aside at least with a limited direction to the State to reconsider the matter and take an appropriate decision afresh keeping in mind all relevant factors. We are unable to uphold even this argument. In our judgment, if a decision is illegal, unconstitutional or ultra vires, it has to be set aside irrespective of laudable object behind it. But once we hold that it was within the power of the State Government to continue or not to continue State Administrative Tribunal and it was open to the State Government to take such a decision, it cannot be set aside merely on the ground that such a decision was not advisable in the facts of the case or that other decision could have been taken. While exercising power of judicial review, this Court cannot substitute its own decision for the decision of the Government. The Court, no doubt, can quash and set aside the decision, if it is illegal, ultra vires, unreasonable or otherwise objectionable. But that is not the situation here. To repeat, from the record of the case, it is amply clear that relevant, germane, valid and proper considerations weighed with the State Government and keeping in view development of law and the decision of the larger Bench of this Court in L. Chandra Kumar, a policy decision has been taken by the State Government to abolish State Administrative Tribunal. Parliament also empowered the State Government to take an appropriate decision by enacting sub-section (1) of Section 74 of the Act of 2000 and in exercise of such power, the State Government had taken a decision. The decision, in our opinion, cannot be regarded as illegal, unlawful or otherwise objectionable. The contention, therefore, has no force and has to be negatived. The appeals were dismissed, and the decision to abolish the State Administrative Tribunal was upheld as legal and within the State Government's authority. No order as to costs was made in these matters.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Section 74(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Re-organisation Act, 2000
2. Delegation of Legislative Power
3. Mala Fide Exercise of Power
4. Role of Central Government in Abolishing the Tribunal

Summary:

1. Constitutionality of Section 74(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Re-organisation Act, 2000

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 74(1) of the Act of 2000, which allows the State Governments of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh to abolish the State Administrative Tribunal by mutual agreement. The Court noted that Article 323A of the Constitution is not self-executory and merely enables Parliament to establish Administrative Tribunals. The power to abolish such tribunals was within the legislative competence of Parliament, and the provision does not violate any constitutional mandate.

2. Delegation of Legislative Power

The Court rejected the argument that Section 74(1) of the Act of 2000 constitutes "excessive delegation" of legislative power. It distinguished between "delegated legislation" and "conditional legislation," holding that the provision in question falls under the latter category. The legislature had laid down the policy and left the discretion to the State Governments to decide on the continuation or abolition of the Tribunal, which is permissible under constitutional law.

3. Mala Fide Exercise of Power

The allegation that the State Government's decision to abolish the Tribunal was mala fide and based on adverse judicial orders was not substantiated with concrete evidence. The Court found that the decision was taken after considering relevant factors, including the Supreme Court's decision in L. Chandra Kumar, which restored the jurisdiction of High Courts over Tribunal decisions. The Court held that the decision was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable.

4. Role of Central Government in Abolishing the Tribunal

The Court clarified that sub-section (4) of Section 74 of the Act of 2000 does not require the Central Government to issue directions for the abolition of the Tribunal if both successor States mutually agree to abolish it. The Central Government's role is limited to resolving disputes between the States, and it has no discretion to override the mutual decision of the States regarding the Tribunal's abolition.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The abolition of the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal by the State Government was found to be legal, constitutional, and in accordance with the legislative framework provided by Parliament. The Court also dismissed the petitions challenging the High Court's decision and confirmed that no directions from the Central Government were necessary for the abolition of the Tribunal.