9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1311X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar powers of contempt vested in the Tribunal under Section 15 of the Act of 1997, the Tribunal ceases to be inferior to the High Court for exercise of writ jurisdiction is devoid of any substance because it ignores that High Courts have constitutional status and are vested with extraordinary writ jurisdiction whereas the Tribunal is only a creature of statute. As held by the Constitution Bench in the case of L. Chandra Kumar [1997 (3) TMI 90 - SUPREME Court] the power of judicial review of the High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution cannot be taken away by a law or even by a constitutional amendment. The matter is remitted back to the High Court for considering the writ petition of the appellant afresh - appeal allowed by way o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g can move only the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, has been assailed on the ground that such observation in the judgment is on account of non-appreciation of relevant facts in the judgment of the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261. On behalf of appellant, it was further submitted that judgment in the case of L. Chandra Kumar (supra) was rendered on 18th March 1997. The relevant Act, i.e., The West Bengal Land Reforms & Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997 (for brevity referred to as the 'Act of 1997') was enacted subsequently in terms of the enabling provisions under Article 323B of the Constitution of India. Under Section 15 of the Act of 1997 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses in Articles 323A and 323B of the Constitution of India to be unconstitutional to the extent they excluded the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court under Articles 226/227and 32 of the Constitution. This was on the premise that power of judicial review is a basic and essential feature of the Constitution and, therefore, could not be taken away even by constitutional amendment. Paragraphs 91, 92 and 93 of this judgment were highlighted by learned counsel for the appellant in support of his submission that all decisions of tribunals created pursuant to Article 323A or Article 323B of the Constitution have been held to be subject to the High Courts' writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. On the oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le 136 of the Constitution of India. Obviously in those cases there could be no occasion to observe that the aggrieved person can also approach the High Court under Article 226/227. The submission that because of similar powers of contempt vested in the Tribunal under Section 15 of the Act of 1997, the Tribunal ceases to be inferior to the High Court for exercise of writ jurisdiction is devoid of any substance because it ignores that High Courts have constitutional status and are vested with extraordinary writ jurisdiction whereas the Tribunal is only a creature of statute. Hence, in our considered view, in the case of Manju Banjerjee (supra) the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court does not lay down the law correctly that when the tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
