IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P. (C) 1827/1997
ALL INDIA ASSOCIATION OF POSTAL SUPERVISORS (GENL. LINE)
..... Petitioner
Through: Kr. Rajesh Singh, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA and ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Raj Kumar Yadav, Advocate for UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA
O R D E R
06.02.2015
1. Though effectively this is a Public Interest Litigation case
in a service matter because petitioner is not an individual but is an
association of persons, however, issue in this case pertains to service matters falling under Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act,
1985 (hereinafter referred to as ?the Act?) because there arises issues
of conditions of services or any other matter pertaining to service as
specified in this Section and therefore by virtue of Section 14 of the
Act, and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of L. Chandra
Kumar vs. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1997 SC 1125, this Court is not the
Court of original jurisdiction and so held in the
W.P.(C) No.1827/1997 page 1 of 3
case of L. Chandra Kumar (supra) as under:-
?99. In view of the reasoning adopted by us, we hold that Clause 2(d)
of Article?323A?and Clause 3(d) of Article 323B, to the extent they
exclude the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court under
Articles 226/227?and?32?of the Constitution, are unconstitutional.
Section?28?of the Act and the ‘‘exclusion of jurisdiction’‘ clauses in all
other legislations enacted under the aegis of
Articles?323A?and?323B?would, to the same extent, be unconstitutional.
The jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts under
Articles?226/227?and upon the Supreme Court under Article?32?of the
Constitution is part of the inviolable basic structure of our
Constitution. While this jurisdiction cannot be ousted, other courts and
Tribunals may perform a supplemental role in discharging the powers
conferred by Articles?226/227?and?32?of the Constitution. The Tribunals
created under Article?323A?and Article?323B?of the Constitution are
possessed of the competence to test the constitutional validity of
statutory provisions and rules. All decisions of these Tribunals will,
however, be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court
within whose jurisdiction the concerned Tribunal falls. The Tribunals
will, nevertheless, continue to act like Courts of first instance in
respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted. It will
not, therefore, be open for litigants to directly approach the High
Courts even in cases where they question the vires of statutory
legislations (except where the legislation which creates the particular
Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the concerned
Tribunal. Section?5(6)?of the Act is valid and constitutional and is to
be interpreted in the manner we have indicated.?
2. In view of the above, instead of dismissing the petition, at
the request of the counsel for the petitioner, this case is transferred
for decision to the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal
Bench, New Delhi.
W.P.(C) No.1827/1997 page 2 of 3
Of course, I have not expressed anything finally with respect to
maintainability or merits of the petition and which aspects will be
considered by the CAT.
3. List before the Registrar of CAT on 25th March, 2015.
Registry of this Court to ensure that record of this case is available to
the Registrar of CAT on the date fixed.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
FEBRUARY 06, 2015
W.P. (C) 1827/1997
ALL INDIA ASSOCIATION OF POSTAL SUPERVISORS (GENL. LINE)
..... Petitioner
Through: Kr. Rajesh Singh, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA and ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Raj Kumar Yadav, Advocate for UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA
O R D E R
06.02.2015
1. Though effectively this is a Public Interest Litigation case
in a service matter because petitioner is not an individual but is an
association of persons, however, issue in this case pertains to service matters falling under Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act,
1985 (hereinafter referred to as ?the Act?) because there arises issues
of conditions of services or any other matter pertaining to service as
specified in this Section and therefore by virtue of Section 14 of the
Act, and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of L. Chandra
Kumar vs. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1997 SC 1125, this Court is not the
Court of original jurisdiction and so held in the
W.P.(C) No.1827/1997 page 1 of 3
case of L. Chandra Kumar (supra) as under:-
?99. In view of the reasoning adopted by us, we hold that Clause 2(d)
of Article?323A?and Clause 3(d) of Article 323B, to the extent they
exclude the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court under
Articles 226/227?and?32?of the Constitution, are unconstitutional.
Section?28?of the Act and the ‘‘exclusion of jurisdiction’‘ clauses in all
other legislations enacted under the aegis of
Articles?323A?and?323B?would, to the same extent, be unconstitutional.
The jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts under
Articles?226/227?and upon the Supreme Court under Article?32?of the
Constitution is part of the inviolable basic structure of our
Constitution. While this jurisdiction cannot be ousted, other courts and
Tribunals may perform a supplemental role in discharging the powers
conferred by Articles?226/227?and?32?of the Constitution. The Tribunals
created under Article?323A?and Article?323B?of the Constitution are
possessed of the competence to test the constitutional validity of
statutory provisions and rules. All decisions of these Tribunals will,
however, be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court
within whose jurisdiction the concerned Tribunal falls. The Tribunals
will, nevertheless, continue to act like Courts of first instance in
respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted. It will
not, therefore, be open for litigants to directly approach the High
Courts even in cases where they question the vires of statutory
legislations (except where the legislation which creates the particular
Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the concerned
Tribunal. Section?5(6)?of the Act is valid and constitutional and is to
be interpreted in the manner we have indicated.?
2. In view of the above, instead of dismissing the petition, at
the request of the counsel for the petitioner, this case is transferred
for decision to the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal
Bench, New Delhi.
W.P.(C) No.1827/1997 page 2 of 3
Of course, I have not expressed anything finally with respect to
maintainability or merits of the petition and which aspects will be
considered by the CAT.
3. List before the Registrar of CAT on 25th March, 2015.
Registry of this Court to ensure that record of this case is available to
the Registrar of CAT on the date fixed.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
FEBRUARY 06, 2015
