COLONEL A D NARGOLKAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For every real or imaginary problem, a law is enacted with the belief, that by this step the problem will be solved. But we find, for reasons which are fairly unexplainable, that problematic issues relating to the problem arise. The problem of delay in adjudication of disputes between members of an Armed Force and the Force in Civil Courts led to the establishment of the Armed Forces Tribunal with the pious hope that an exclusive Tribunal to decide disputes relating to Armed Forces would facilitate a speedy adjudication of disputes, but the establishment of the Tribunal has raised jurisdictional issues pertaining to the power of a High Court under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Much has been said about the delay in obtaining justice in Courts and one probable reason for the delay, apart from many others, is the multiple tiered adjudicatory forums available to the litigating parties. A simple revenue matter, pertaining to an entry in the record of rights, commences with a claim before the tehsildar whose decision is amenable to a challenge by way of an appeal either before the Revenue Assistant or an Additional Collector and a further forum of a Revision before the Financial Commissioner. Exhausting the channel of forums available before the Revenue Authorities, an aggrieved party can approach the High Court under its Writ or Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which writ is heard by a learned Single Judge of the High Court. Further forum of a Writ Appeal or a Letters Patent Appeal is available before a Division Bench and at the top of the pyramid would be a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal before the Supreme Court. The eviction of an unauthorized occupant from a public premises commences with a proceedings before the Estate Officer whose decision can be challenged by way of an Appeal before the District Judge and further remedies, one before a Single Judge and one before a Division Bench thereafter are available in the High Court before the destination is reached by way of a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal before the Supreme Court. An issue of levy and assessment of house tax commences with an adjudication before the Assessor and Collector against whose decision an Appeal would lie to either the District Judge or a Committee of Assessors and thereafter the water flows before a Single Judge and thereafter a Division Bench of the High Court before terminating by way of a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal before the Supreme Court. A licensing issue commences with a decision of the Licensing Inspector against which a departmental remedy by way of a representation to the Commissioner would lie before the water flows through a Single Judge and thereafter a Division Bench of the High Court before terminating by way of a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal before the Supreme Court. A simple recovery suit before a Judge, Junior Division, would result in an Appeal before a Judge Senior Division i.e. a Regular First Appeal with further remedy before the High Court by way of a Regular Second Appeal and the ultimate destination would be a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal before the Supreme Court. An ejectment petition before a Rent Controller leads to a First Appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal and if the remedy of Second Appeal against order is not provided by the statute a challenge would lie under the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and mercifully no challenge would lie before a Division Bench and the journey would end a step earlier before the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave to Appeal.

(3.) The multi tiered adjudicatory forums, having a pyramidical structure, are bound to result in congestion as we move upwards and the movement of the traffic (litigation) is bound to be slow; and if not result in making an exit from the reality of life, the slow pace certainly diminishes the value of a claim. Some believe that the existing adjudicatory mechanism, which functions in a multi-tiered pyramidically structured structure, has virtually reduced the whole system into a reductio ad absurdum.