R.Y. AGADI, SENIORIT/NO.27, S/O. REVANASIDDAPPA YALLAPPA, C/O. NAGARAJ B. AGADI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DPAR (SERVICE-II), VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001, THE SECRETARY, COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned Government Header is directed to take notice for respondents 1 to 3. In these writ petitions the petitioners have prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash Annexure -A, the notification promoting the 4th respondent as Deputy Director, Department of Mines and Geology and consequently for a writ of Quo Warranto to remove him from the said post.

(2.) THE Office of the 4th respondent relates to the Government servant. The Supreme Court in identical circumstances, in the case of L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1997 SC 1125 held 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 3238, to the extent they exdude the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court under Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution, are unconstitutional Section28of the Act and the "exclusion of jurisdiction" clouses in ail other legislation 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. AM 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