9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 894X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntainability 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 order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under its jurisdiction. Learned counsel had sought an adjournment to enable him to examine the aforesaid aspect and address arguments. 3. Today, Mr. Rajpal, learned counsel for the petitioners states that once notice to show cause was issued in the present petition on 30.5.2014, this Court is precluded from raising the question of maintainability of the petition or going into the issue of lack of jurisdiction for the reason that any such decision would amount to reviewing the order dated 30.5.2014, which is impermissible in law. To substantiate his argument, learned counsel relies on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India Ors. vs. Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) and Anr., reported as (1997) 10 SCC 258. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o have the power to test the vires of subordinate legislations and rules. However, this power of the Tribunals will be subject to one important exception. The Tribunals shall not entertain any question regarding the vires of their parent statutes following the settled principle that a Tribunal which is a creature of an Act cannot declare that very Act to be unconstitutional. In such cases alone, the concerned High Court may be approached directly. All other decisions of these Tribunals, rendered in cases that they are specifically empowered to adjudicate upon by virtue of their parent statutes, will also be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of their respective High Courts. We may add that the Tribunals will, however, continue to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... party can move the Supreme Court under Article 196 of the Constitution of India. 6. In the present case, indisputably, in the first round of litigation, the petitioners had approached the Tribunal for relief as a court of first instance. After the Tribunal had passed an order, the aggrieved parties including the petitioners herein had approached the Division Bench of this Court by filing writ petitions which were disposed of vide common judgment and order dated 6.7.2012. Now, for the counsel for the petitioners to urge that the petitioners are well entitled to approach a Single Judge of this Court directly for relief, which would lie in the first instance before the Tribunal, is found to be quite untenable and is turned down. 7. Comin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent/CBDT is not barred from raising the same when filing their counter affidavit, which has yet to be filed. 9. Pertinently, the Registry had listed the present petition before the Court with an objection that it was maintainable before the Tribunal. It appears that the said objection was not brought to the notice of the predecessor Bench at the time of admission, may be because none was present on behalf of the respondent/CBDT on the said date to assist the Court. It appears that notice came to be issued in the writ petition without examining the aforesaid aspect. However, on the very next date of hearing, i.e., on 24.09.2014, Mr. Sinha had appeared for the respondent/CBDT and raised the objection of maintainability of the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y another Judge on an identical point, the matter ought to have been referred to the Division Bench in accordance with legal propriety and resultantly, the SLP filed by the Bank was allowed. 12. In the present case, 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. Simply because notice to show cause was issued to the respondent/CBDT on the first date, will not preclude this Court from examining the aspect of inherent jurisdiction on a subsequent date. Nor would issuance of the notice prevent the respondent/CBDT from taking the plea of lack of inherent jurisdiction in this court at the first available opportunity or at the time of filing the count ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
