2014 (11) TMI 894 - HC - Income Tax

Maintainability of petition Violation of order issued by CBDT by petitioner Remedy as provided in the law to be availed first before reaching the HC - Held that - In L. Chandra Kumar Versus Union Of India And Others 1997 (3) TMI 90 - SUPREME Court it has been held that in the first instance, their remedy lies before the Tribunal, since respondent/CBDT, being a part of the Central Government, comes under its jurisdiction - when inherent jurisdiction is lacking in a court, mere issuance of a notice to show cause in the writ petition, cannot be treated as a waiver - no decision has been taken either on merits or on the issue of maintainability of the present petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The petitioners are working on different posts with the respondent/CBDT and they have raised a grievance with regard to their promotions - they cannot be permitted to bypass the forum of the Tribunal and approach a Single Judge of the High Court directly for relief. It is for the petitioners to follow the route charted out by the Supreme Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar Versus Union Of India And Others 1997 (3) TMI 90 - SUPREME Court - only after they exhaust their remedy before the Tribunal, can the petitioners approach the High Court in appeal, and in that eventuality, their petition would have to be placed before the Division Bench for appropriate orders thus, the petition is not maintainable before the HC Decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdictional competence of the High Court in entertaining a petition directly bypassing the Tribunal.
2. Effect of notice to show cause on the maintainability of the petition.
3. Applicability of legal precedents in determining the maintainability of the petition.
4. Proper forum for seeking relief in service disputes related to promotions.

Analysis:

The judgment deals with the issue of jurisdictional competence of the High Court in entertaining a petition directly bypassing the Tribunal. The petitioners sought to quash an order declining their promotion, arguing that the High Court should hear their case directly. However, the Court emphasized that the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 provides a specific route for addressing service disputes, and the Tribunal should be the first instance for such matters. The High Court and Supreme Court have the power of judicial review over Tribunal decisions, but litigants must follow the prescribed route outlined by legal precedents.

Regarding the effect of notice to show cause on the maintainability of the petition, the Court clarified that the mere issuance of such a notice does not preclude the Court from examining the issue of inherent jurisdiction at a later stage. Lack of inherent jurisdiction cannot be waived, and the respondent can raise objections even after the notice is issued. The Court rejected the argument that questioning jurisdiction after issuing a notice amounts to a review, emphasizing the fundamental nature of jurisdictional competence.

The judgment also discussed the applicability of legal precedents in determining the maintainability of the petition. It distinguished the present case from a previous decision involving a prosecution matter, highlighting the importance of following legal procedures and referring matters to the appropriate forums. The Court underscored the need to adhere to legal propriety and procedural requirements in seeking relief through the judicial system.

Lastly, the judgment addressed the proper forum for seeking relief in service disputes related to promotions. The petitioners were working with the respondent and had raised grievances regarding their promotions. The Court reiterated that bypassing the Tribunal and approaching a Single Judge of the High Court directly is not permissible. The petitioners were directed to follow the established route outlined by the Supreme Court, which involves exhausting remedies before the Tribunal before approaching the High Court in appeal.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable directly in the High Court but granted the petitioners liberty to approach the Tribunal for appropriate relief in accordance with the law. The judgment underscores the importance of following legal procedures and respecting the hierarchy of judicial forums in resolving service disputes.