R LANGKHAM Vs. JOHN L KILLONG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Upon hearing Mr. Banikumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. N. Ibotimbi Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. Jagatchandra Singh, learned Additional Govt. Advocate for the State respondents, I am of the view that this matter can be disposed of at the motion stage considering the facts and circumstances of the case and, accordingly, I hereby dispose of this writ petition with the following judgment and order.

(2.) In this writ petition, the petitioner made a prayer for quashing the entire proceedings of the Co-operative Tribunal Revision Case No. 1 of 1999 now pending before the learned Manipur State Co-operative Tribunal, Manipur and also for setting aside the impugned order dated 29-4-1999 passed in the said revision case as in Annexure-A/2 to the writ petition. Mr. Banikumar Singh, learned counsel at the very outset submitted that the learned Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition namely, the Co-operative Revision Case No. 1 of 1999 by contending inter alia, that no revision lies from any order passed by the State Government in a connected appeal as it is barred by provisions of law laid down under S. 149(3) read with S. 152(4) of the Manipur Co-operative Societies Act, 1976. According to the learned counsel, the respondent No. 1 herein, preferred an appeal under S. 152 of the Act of 1976 against the order relating to the issuance of the Registration certificate bearing No. 1 of 1997-98, dated 21st August, 1997 to and in favour of the Manipur State Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes Development Co-operative Bank Ltd. issued by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Imphal West, Manipur and that appeal was dismissed by the State Government however, the appellate authority dismissed the said appeal being Appeal Case No. 3 of 1997 with a direction to the Registrar concerned to take up corrective action keeping in view of the office letter issued by the Deputy General Manager, RBI Central Office, 1st Floor, Garment House, Worli, Bombay under No. 924/08.01.08/98, dated 9th March, 1999 and to report the progress of the case and other similar case to the Government so as to avoid complicacies in future. Being aggrieved by the order of 12th April, 1999, the present respondent No. 1 filed a revision petition being Co-operative Revision Case No. 1 of 1999 before the learned Tribunal, Manipur. The learned Tribunal admitted the revision petition on 29th April, 1999. In the said revision case, the present writ petitioner was the respondent No. 3 who raised preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the said revision petition. At this stage, Mr. N. Ibotombi Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 contended that the preliminary objection was partly heard by the learned Tribunal and the case was fixed for further argument and the learned Tribunal is going to dispose of the said preliminary objection raised by the present writ petitioner and, as such, it may not be justified to interfere with the proceedings of the case now pending before the Tribunal. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 that a revision petition lies from the order passed by the appellate authority and the revision petition is maintainable. Supporting the case of the respondent No. 1, Mr. N. Ibotombi Singh had drawn my attention to the related provisions of S. 149(3). Section 152(4) and S. 154 of the Act of 1976 and submitted that the Tribunal may call for and examine the record of any proceedings in which an appeal lies to the State Government. The learned counsel interpreted the word it appearing in S. 149(3) of the Act, 1976 as the subordinate authority like the State Government and other subordinate authorities. A reliance has been made by Mr. N. Ibotombi Singh, learned counsel to a decision of the Apex Court rendered in Kihoto Hollahon v. Zachillhu, reported in 1992 Supp (2) SCC 651 : (AIR 1993 SC 412) and also another decision of this Court rendered in Union of India v. M/s. Mullick Harbans Lal and Co., reported in AIR 1992 Gau 103. After proper application of my mind in this matter and also upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the decisions so far relied upon by Mr. N. Ibotombi Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 are not applicable in the instant case and, apart from it, the learned Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain a revision petition against the order passed by the State Govt. in anappeal for the following reasons : (1) The case in Kihoto Hollahan (supra) the Supreme Court interpreted the language of para 7 of Schedule 10 of the Constitution and held that the provision excluding jurisdiction of Courts should be strictly construed and said rule of construction would apply only where more than one reasonable possible views open and the Apex Court further observed that the purpose of enactment of para 7 of Schedule 10 was to bar the jurisdiction of the Courts under Arts. 136, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and the said provision which seeks to exclude the jurisdiction of Courts is to be strictly construed is inapplicable as the rule of construction is attracted where two or more reasonable possible constructions are open on the language of the statute. The Apex Court also relied upon the words of Professor H. W. R. Wade, in his book the Administrative Law (6th Edn.) Prof. said :

(3.) According to me, S. 149(3) of the Act of 1976 is a finality clause and the normal effect of it is therefore to prevent any further appeal or revision to the Tribunal.