9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 894X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome Tax, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, have a grievance that the respondent/CBDT has violated the order dated 6.7.2012 passed by the Division Bench in a batch of writ petitions filed by them, including WP(C)No.8017/2010 filed against the order dated 2.11.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi. On the aforesaid date, learned counsel for the petitioners was requested to address arguments on the maintainability of the present petition as the petitioners have approached the High Court directly, when as per the guidelines in the case of L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors. reported as (1997) 3 SCC 261, in the first instance, their remedy lies before the Tribunal, since respondent/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wed by litigants governed under the aforesaid Statute, for seeking legal recourse. In this context, following observations of the Supreme Court are relevant:- "93. Before moving on to other aspects, we may summarise our conclusions on the jurisdictional powers of these Tribunals. The Tribunals are competent to hear matters where the vires of statutory provisions are questioned. However, in discharging this duty, they cannot act as substitutes for the High Courts and the Supreme Court which have, under our constitutional setup, been specifically entrusted with such an obligation. Their function in this respect is only supplementary and all such decisions of the Tribunals will be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the respective ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cerned High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be invoked only after approaching the Tribunal and obtaining a decision from it. As was discussed in the aforesaid case, the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has not been completely ousted. The only fetter imposed on the said discretion is that as the first step, the litigants shall approach the Tribunal that will continue to act like courts of first instance in respect of areas of law for which they have been constituted and only after a decision is taken by the Tribunal, can they approach the Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Tribunal falls. Further, if aggrieved by the decision of the Division Ben ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is raised very belatedly, when it comes to lack of inherent jurisdiction, nothing can confer the same on the Court, either by waiver or on account of oversight. 8. Resultantly, 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. If it comes to the notice of the Court at any stage of the proceedings, whether suo moto, or otherwise, that there is a question that needs to be examined with regard to maintainability of a petition on the ground of lack of inherent jurisdiction, then there can be no question of waiver of such an objection only on account of the fact that notice to show cause has been issued in the petition. Even otherwise, if notice came t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rosecution launched against the appellant/Bank under Section 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, it had moved the High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC for quashing the said prosecution. The High Court had declined to grant any relief to the appellant/Bank and aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/Bank had approached the Supreme Court, where it was claimed that another Single Judge of the very same High Court had quashed a similar prosecution initiated against the Bank, by accepting their contention that in view of Section 1(4), the Act had no application to their establishment at the relevant point in time. Taking note of the aforesaid submission, the Supreme Court had observed that if the Single Judge was una ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng on different posts with the respondent/CBDT and they have raised a grievance with regard to their promotions. In such a situation, 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 (supra). 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. 14. Accordingly, the notice dated 30.5.2014 is discharged and the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable directly in the High Court. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
