UNION OF INDIA Vs. MYSORE PAPER MILLS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN view of the order dated 29-7-2003, passed by the Chief Justice, this Reference was placed before us on 14-8-2003. The Division Bench vide order dated 7-7-2003 had referred these matters to the Full Bench regarding the maintainability of the revision petition in the context of the provisions made in the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called the mv Act), Karnataka Private Educational In stitutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 1975 (now Karnataka Education Act, 1983) (hereinafter called the Education Act) and the railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1989 (hereinafter called the RCT Act) for consideration afresh in view of the two earlier decisions rendered, one by Full Bench in Excellent education Society v. Shahida Begaum (Writ appeals Nos. 1101/03/1987) pertaining to education Appellate Tribunal as the order is amenable to Sec. 115, C. P. C. , disposed of on 30-5-1989 and the other decision of the division Bench of this Court in Mrs. Noreen r. Srikantaiah v. Dashrath Ramaiah, AIR 1985 Kant 208 wherein the question regarding maintainability of revision petition has not been examined. The decision passed by the single Judge/division Bench held that the Tribunal is not a Court and other decisions are held per incuriam. C. R. P. 3487/ 98, 3488 and 3501 of 1998 have been referred to a larger Bench on 18-1-1999 regarding maintainability of the revision petitions. It is also to be seen that in C. R. P. 1378/99 and connected matters pertaining to Education matter, the decision of Full bench dated 30-5-1989 has been followed and the cases were disposed of on 25-2-2002. The matters were placed before the three Judges Bench on 29-7-2003 as per the direction of the Chief Justice. The Full bench observed that it could not sit in judgment on the decision of a co-ordinate Full bench and observed that it would be appropriate that the matters are considered by the Larger Bench of five Judges,

(2.) THE question referred is :

(3.) WE shall now consider the argument of the learned counsel in their respective cases, that the Tribunal is a Court subordinate to the High Court and a revision lies.