9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (12) TMI 945 - HC - Indian LawsProfessional misconduct - power of High Court to revise an order passed by the Council under Section 22 A of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 - HELD THAT - A reading of the case of RADHEY SHYAM ANR JAGDISH PRASAD VERSUS CHHABI NATH ORS IQBAL KAUR ORS 2015 (7) TMI 376 - SUPREME COURT would to a conclusion that all Courts and Tribunals which are functioning in the territorial jurisdiction of this Court are subordinate to it. The control and working of the Subordinate Court while exercising their statutory appellate or revisional authority are subject to the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Despite the curtailment of the power of this Court to revise an order pursuant to the amendment to Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure under Act 46 of 1999, the power of this Court to exercise superintendence and control over courts and tribunals and exercise revisional jurisdiction continues to be recognised by virtue of Article 227 of Constitution of India. Being a Constitutional Court, the power is inherent, as it were. An adjudication implies that there is a lis before the Court of Tribunal and the Tribunal decides the same after hearing both the parties. The mere fact that the parties are heard does not make a body - a Tribunal. Principles of natural justice have grown to such an extent that even without a body being a Tribunal, it has been called upon to comply with the principles of natural justice. The basis of this principle is attributed to the Act of the Almighty. God did not punish Adam, banishing him from Paradise, without hearing him. If principles of natural justice applies to Almighty, all the more it applies to his frail creatures. Therefore, the test is not whether the parties are heard and examined, but, whether there is a transfer of judicial power from the State to a body and that body is clothed with the power of adjudication of a lis. In case on hand, a professional misconduct not being a lis, the Board of Discipline cannot be held to be a Tribunal within the meaning of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, it is not amenable to my revisional jurisdiction. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
Issues involved:
The issue involves the maintainability of a Civil Revision Petition against an order passed by the Board of Discipline under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. Details of the Judgment: 1. The petitioner lodged a complaint against the second respondent alleging professional misconduct, which was dismissed by the first respondent, the Board of Discipline. The petitioner filed a Civil Revision Petition challenging the dismissal. 2. The High Court raised a doubt on the maintainability of the revision since the Board of Discipline is not a Court or Tribunal under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. The petitioner argued that the Board of Discipline is a "Tribunal" and cited past judgments, but the Court found those references not applicable to the current issue. 4. The Court referred to relevant judgments to explain the distinction between the powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing the High Court's superintendence and control over courts and tribunals. 5. The Court analyzed the characteristics of a Tribunal based on legal precedents, emphasizing the need for a body to decide a lis (a dispute) between contesting parties to be considered a Tribunal. 6. The Court concluded that a complaint to a professional body does not amount to a lis, and therefore, the Board of Discipline cannot be considered a Tribunal under Article 227, making the Civil Revision Petition not maintainable. 7. The Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition but granted liberty to the petitioner to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without penalizing for any delay caused by the previous proceedings.
|
