9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (1) TMI 295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion that this Court had no jurisdiction to test the validity of the CEGAT order/decision in the face of judgment supra as the Tribunal was not the creature of Article 323B. In other words it is sought to be projected that the direction contained in the judgment supra reviving the power of the High Courts to judicially review the decisions of Tribunal was limited to such Tribunals only as were established under Articles 323A and 323B and since the CEGAT was created under the Customs Act and the Central Excise Act, this Court was not competent to examine the validity of its orders/decisions on the strength of directions contained in Chandra Kumar s case. Alternatively it is submitted that even if it was conceded that the Supreme Court judgment was attracted to it still this Court was helpless in the matter as it fell outside the Court s territorial jurisdiction. Lastly it was urged that the two writ petitions were not entertainable as the petitioners had failed to exhaust the alternative statutory remedy provided under Section 35L of the Excise Act. 3. Following issues were thrown up for consideration in this backdrop :- (i) Whether the Supreme Court judgment covered the CEGAT a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the Constitution, it was exercisable in case of orders/decisions passed by all Tribunals set up prior to and after the enactment of Articles 323A and 323B of the Constitution. They claimed that the Supreme Court judgment had laid down so loud and clear in paras 91 and 92 and had left no scope for any doubt or ambiguity in this regard. The Counsel also repelled the contention that CEGAT was amenable to the jurisdiction of Delhi High Court only because its headquarters was located at New Delhi. According to them this plea if accepted would contravene the mandate of the Supreme Court judgment and that of Article 226(2) also. They pointed out alternatively that CEGAT Notification No. 5/95, dated 31-5-1995, itself provided that its Benches could hold their sitting at their headquarter or such places as may be considered expedient. Since Madhya Pradesh fell within the territorial jurisdiction of the Northern Zonal Bench, the CEGAT was free to hold its sittings in this State also and thus should be deemed to fall within the territorial jurisdiction of the M.P. High Court. As regards plea of alternative remedy, it was submitted that the Supreme Court had as good as excluded a direct app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt was confronted with the contention that Tribunals established under Article 323A of the Constitution were substitutes of the High Courts and should be equated so in Muzumdar s case (AIR 1990 SC 2263). Even as it overruled the plea, it came across complaints of lacunae in alternative institutional mechanism more particularly malfunctioning of the CEGAT. The Court accordingly expressed its concerned in R.K. Jain s case [1993 (65) E.L.T. 305 (S.C.) = 1993 (4) SCC 120] and asked for an extensive study of the matter by the Law Commission. Eventually the issue was finally clinched in Chandra Kumar s case [1997 (92) E.L.T. 318 (SC) = AIR 1997 SC 1125]. 9. This judgment broadly holds that the power of judicial review vested in the High Courts under Article 226/227 and the Supreme Court under Article 32 was an integral and essential feature of the Constitution, forming part of its basic structure and that this power could not be excluded by any Act of Parliament or amendment to the Constitution. It further affirms the power of judicial superintendence of the High Courts over the decisions of Tribunals, whether or not created under Article 323A or Article 323B of the Constitution and m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cles 323A and 323B and the provisions of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, it was at the same time engaged in delineating the extent of its own power of judicial review and that of the High Courts. It cannot thus be logically suggested that its dictum was limited to the CAT and the four Tribunals created post Article 323B. The judgment of the Court when read between the lines leaves no scope for doubt in this regard. As such once it was settled that the power of judicial review possessed by the High Courts formed a basic feature of the Constitution, its flow of exercise would cover all Tribunals irrespective of any classification. 12. The other stand of the respondents that only Delhi High Court was competent to review the orders/decisions of the CEGAT because of its location at Delhi was equally misconceived and fallacious. It must be made clear at the outset that the Supreme Court had nowhere laid down so in Chandra Kumar s case. The word Territorial Jurisdiction occurring in paras 90 and 91 was not to be interpreted literally but in the context of mandate of Article 226(1) and (2). Besides `the Court direction was to be gathered in para 99 which specifically provides ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urally fall or should be deemed to fall within the territorial limits of the M.P. High Court notwithstanding that it was headquartered at New Delhi at the time of the passing of the impugned order. 14. Coming to respondent s plea of alternative statutory remedy, it deserves to be rejected on the very threshold. It is well settled that rule of exhaustion of available statutory remedy is only a rule of policy. It neither bars nor prohibits jurisdiction of the Court and the entertaining or otherwise of a petition falls squarely within the discretion of the Court. It is also well recognised that where the Tribunal or a Court acts outside its jurisdiction or in excess of it or under a law which is ultra vires or places a erroneous interpretation on a statute or conducts proceedings in a manner contrary to rules of natural justice and accepted rules of procedure, the plea of alternative statutory remedy becomes irrelevant. 15. It is true that an appeal is provided against the order of the CEGAT under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act to the Supreme Court but the Apex Court itself had made it redundant by providing that no appeal would directly lie to it against any decision of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
