2015 (3) TMI 1311 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether a writ application is maintainable against an order of West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal refusing to initiate contempt proceedings against an authority arrayed as respondent no.5 before the Tribunal? Held that - we are unable to agree with the view that writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution is not maintainable when the Tribunal refuses to initiate a contempt proceeding - The submission that because of similar powers of contempt vested in the Tribunal under Section 15 of the Act of 1997 the Tribunal ceases to be inferior to the High Court for exercise of writ jurisdiction is devoid of any substance because it ignores that High Courts have constitutional status and are vested with extraordinary writ jurisdiction whereas the Tribunal is only a creature of statute. As held by the Constitution Bench in the case of L. Chandra Kumar 1997 (3) TMI 90 - SUPREME Court the power of judicial review of the High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution cannot be taken away by a law or even by a constitutional amendment. The matter is remitted back to the High Court for considering the writ petition of the appellant afresh - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
- Maintainability of a writ application against an order of a Tribunal refusing to initiate contempt proceedings.

Analysis:
The primary issue in this case revolves around the maintainability of a writ application against an order of a Tribunal refusing to initiate contempt proceedings. The appellant challenged an order by the High Court at Calcutta, which relied on a Division Bench judgment to dismiss the writ petition as not maintainable. The crux of the matter is whether a writ application can be filed against the refusal of the Tribunal to initiate contempt proceedings against a specific authority.

The appellant argued that the Division Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court in a previous case correctly held that there is no right of appeal against the dismissal of contempt proceedings. However, the appellant contested the view that only the Supreme Court can be approached under Article 136 of the Constitution in cases of palpable contempt. This argument was based on the assertion that the judgment failed to appreciate the relevant facts outlined in the Constitution Bench judgment of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261. The appellant highlighted that the relevant Act, The West Bengal Land Reforms & Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997, grants the Tribunal powers equivalent to a High Court in dealing with contempt matters.

On the other hand, the respondents argued that since the Tribunal has been vested with powers akin to a High Court under the Act of 1997, the High Court cannot exercise judicial review when the Tribunal rejects or drops a contempt petition. They relied on precedents emphasizing that no appeal lies against orders dropping contempt proceedings, as clarified in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Mahboob S. Allibhoy (1996) 4 SCC 411. The respondents contended that the Tribunal's powers do not make it inferior to the High Court for the purpose of writ jurisdiction.

Upon a thorough examination of the arguments and relevant legal provisions, the Supreme Court held that the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court did not correctly interpret the law in ruling that a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution is not maintainable when the Tribunal refuses to initiate contempt proceedings. The Court emphasized that the power of judicial review under Article 226/227 cannot be abrogated by law or constitutional amendment, as established in the case of L. Chandra Kumar. The Court clarified that while it is rare for a High Court to deem a writ petition against an order of an inferior court or tribunal as not maintainable, there may be exceptional circumstances based on propriety, constitutional scheme, or established rules.

Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the High Court for a fresh consideration of the appellant's writ petition on its merits and in accordance with the law. It was explicitly stated that the Court did not delve into the substantive aspects of the case. The appeal was allowed to this extent, with no costs imposed on either party.