HIMMAT CHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAJEEV Gupta, C. J. Mr. D. S. Patni, Advocate for the pe titioners. Mr. Arvind Vashishth, Assistant So licitor General for respondents Nos. 1 to 4. They are heard.

(2.) MR. Arvind Vashishth, the learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for respondents Nos. 1 to 4 has raised a pre liminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that as the impugned judg ment dated 10-03-2006 was passed by the New Delhi Bench of Central Admin istrative Tribunal, the High Court of Urtaranchal has no jurisdiction to enter tain the writ petition against the said judgment.

(3.) THE Apex Court, in the case of L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India and others reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261, observed in para 99 : "99. In view of the reasoning adopted by us, we hold that clause 2 (d) of Article 323-A and clause 3 (d) of Article 323-B, to the extent they exclude the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court under Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Con stitution, are unconstitutional. Sec tion 28 of the Act and the "exclusion of jurisdiction" clauses in all other legislations enacted under the aegis of Articles 323-A and 323-B would, to the same extent, be unconstitu tional. THE jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts under Articles 226/227 and upon the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Con stitution is a 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 Con stitution. THE Tribunals created un der Article 323-A and Article 323-B of the Constitution are possessed of the competence to test the constitutional validity of statutory provisions and rules. All decisions of these Tri bunals will, however, be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdic tion the Tribunal concerned 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 Tribunal concerned. Section 5 (6) of the Act is valid and constitutional and is to be interpreted in the man ner we have indicated. "