9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 1100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 23rd April 2008 allowed them to intervene and further allowed them to make submissions at the time of hearing of the writ petition. They were also given liberty to file affidavits. 3. Pursuant to the said order of the Hon'ble High Court, these appellants filed affidavits. After the High Court passed its impugned judgment dated 14.11.08 they have filed these appeals assailing the said judgment. 4. At the outset of their arguments this Court wanted learned counsel for the appellants to satisfy this Court about their locus to participate in the controversy at the stage when the matter was before the High Court in view of the fact that admittedly these appellants were not parties before the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and others - (1997) 3 SCC 261 and in particular to paragraph 99, page 311 at placitum f & g of the report and contended that in view of the law declared in Chandra Kumar (supra), they can come before the High Court and raise their grievances against the judgment of C.A.T. as their interests have been affected by that judgment even though they were not parties to the proceedings in which the said judgment was rendered. 9. This Court is of the view that the understanding of the ratio in Chandra Kumar (supra) by the learned counsel for the appellants in this case is not correct and the ratio in Chandra Kumar (supra) is just to the contrary. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... diction of the Tribunal concerned. 13. On a proper reading of these two sentences, it is clear: (a) The Tribunals will function as the only Court of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted. (b) Even where any challenge is made to the vires of legislation, excepting the legislation under which Tribunal has been set up, in such cases also, litigants will not be able to directly approach the High Court `overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal'. 14. The aforesaid propositions have been repeated again by the Constitution Bench in the penultimate paragraph 99 at page 311 of the report in the following words: "...The Tribunals will, nevertheless, continue to act like courts of first in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Chandra Kumar (supra), approach the High Court and treat it as the Court of first instance in respect of their grievances by `overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal'. The C.A.T. also has the jurisdiction of Review under Rule 17 of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987. So, it cannot be said that the appellants were without any remedy. 17. As the appellants cannot approach the High Court by treating it as a Court of first instance, their Special Leave Petition before this Court is also incompetent and not maintainable. 18. The principles laid down in the case of Chandra Kumar (supra) virtually embody a rule of law and in view of Article 141 of the Constitution the same is binding on the High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
