9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 2082 - HC - Indian LawsSeeking a review of a judgment and order - review petition challenges the decision to remand certain issues back to the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal for reconsideration - HELD THAT - In A.K. Kaul 1995 (4) TMI 324 - SUPREME COURT the appellants were officers of the Intelligence Bureau. On 23.07.1979 the employees of the Bureau formed a trade union and the appellants got elected as office-bearers thereof. By a circular the Joint-Director of the Bureau warned that disciplinary action would be taken against employees partaking in the trade union s activities. This circular was impugned in the Supreme Court which by an interim order restrained its implementation. Subsequently the appellants were dismissed from service by orders passed under Article 311 (2) (c) of the Constitution of India. The appellants filed writ petitions which were transferred to and ultimately dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and they preferred an appeal against the Tribunal s decision. The question that arose in appeal was whether an order passed under Article 311 (2) (c) of the Constitution is subject to judicial review or not. The Apex Court held that it is subject to judicial review and the principles laid down in the S.R. Bommai -v- Union of India 1994 (3) TMI 380 - SUPREME COURT case governing the justiciability of the satisfaction of the President in the matter of exercise of power under Article 356 would be applicable to the present case. While arriving at this conclusion the Court espoused on judicial review and justiciability of matters before it. The Court held that the judiciary is vested with the power to check the validity of an action of every authority functioning under the Constitution on the touchstone of the Constitution in order to ensure that powers conferred by the Constitution on that authority are not transgressed. On account of want of judicially manageable standards some matters may not be within the purview of the judicial process and such matters are regarded as non-justiciable. The fact that the Court held that the grant of dearness allowance is a legally enforceable right meant that the Court considered the issue of such grant of dearness allowance to be justiciable and then proceeded to render the decision therein. Had the Court considered the grant of dearness allowance to be a non-justiciable right the Court would not have pronounced a decision on this matter. It is implicit in the said judgment that the author regarded dearness allowance to be a justiciable right and accordingly held it to be legally enforceable. Thus there was no need for the Court to separately enunciate that the matter before the Court was justiciable or that dearness allowance is a justiciable right. Conclusion - There are no error apparent on the face of the record and the review petition is not maintainable. This is not a fit case for review - Application dismissed.
The judgment involves a review petition filed by the State of West Bengal seeking a review of a previous judgment delivered by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court. The review petition challenges the decision to remand certain issues back to the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal for reconsideration.
Issues Presented and Considered: The core legal issues considered in the judgment include:
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Remand Without Notice: The State argued that the remand to the Tribunal was made without notice to the parties, which was not permissible unless specifically pleaded. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the jurisdiction of the High Court in writ matters is broader than in second appeals, where substantial questions of law must be framed. The Court noted that the issue of remand was discussed during the hearing, and the parties were aware of it. 2. Reliance on Uncited Judgments: The State contended that the High Court relied on ten judgments not cited during the hearing, violating natural justice principles. The Court found that nine judgments were part of a general discussion on government-employee relationships and not directly linked to the issues decided. The tenth judgment was cited to explain the interpretation of judgments. The Court concluded that no prejudice was caused to the State, and the argument was rejected. 3. Ignorance of Binding Precedent: The State claimed that the High Court ignored the binding precedent of G.C. Mandawar, which held that dearness allowance is not a justiciable right. The Court distinguished the precedent, noting that the current case involved specific provisions creating a right to dearness allowance. The Court held that the precedent was not applicable, and any error in distinguishing it should be addressed through an appeal, not a review. 4. Justiciability of Dearness Allowance: The State argued that dearness allowance is not a justiciable right, and a writ of mandamus cannot be issued for its payment. The Court examined the concept of justiciability and found that the issue of dearness allowance was indeed justiciable. The Court held that the right to dearness allowance was legally enforceable, and the issue of justiciability was implicitly addressed in the previous judgment. Significant Holdings: The Court reiterated the principles governing the review jurisdiction, emphasizing that it is limited and cannot be used as an appeal in disguise. The Court found no error apparent on the face of the record and held that the review petition was not maintainable. Key principles established include:
Final determinations on each issue were made, rejecting the grounds for review and upholding the original decision to remand certain matters to the Tribunal for further consideration.
|
