VIJAY GHOGARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition Challenges The Constitutional Validity of the Maharashtra State Public Services [Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Special Backward Category and Other Backward Classes] Act, 2001 (Maharashtra Act No.VIII of 2004) and the Government Resolution No.BCC2001/1887/PR. KR.640/01/16B dated 25 May 2004.

(2.) When This Writ Petition Was Called Out, Mr.Khambatta, learned Advocate General, appearing for the State of Maharashtra raised a preliminary objection about maintainability of these Writ Petitions. This was on the ground that as per the law laid down by a Bench of Seven Judges of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar vs Union of India and others, 1997 3 SCC 261, only the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal established under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 enacted by the Parliament in exercise of the powers under Article 323A of the Constitution of India is to function as the Court of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which it has been constituted. Further the Court held that even where any challenge is made to the vires of legislation (excepting the legislation under which the Tribunal has been constituted), the litigants will not be able to directly approach the High Court overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

(3.) The Learned Advocate General has also relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and another vs Subhas Sharma, 2002 4 SCC 145 and Rajeev Kumar and another vs Hemraj Singh Chauhan and others, 2010 4 SCC 554.