Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1442 (RAJ)

Krishna Swaroop Verma v. State of Rajasthan

2009-05-29

PREM SHANKAR ASOPA

body2009
Hon'ble ASOPA, J.—By this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking writ of mandamus against the respondents to implement the judgment of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (in short `the Tribunal') dated 13.7.2005 passed in Appeal No. 1578/2001. 2. Submission of counsel for the petitioner is that with the consent of both the parties, the Tribunal vide order dated 13.7.2005 had issued direction for grant of pension and all the pensionary benefits within a period of one month but the same has not been implemented so far. His further submission is that the Tribunal being a statutory authority under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters) Appellate Tribunal, 1976 (in short 'the Act of 1976') the respondents are bound to obey its judgment but they are defying the same, therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file the contempt petition before the Tribunal. 3. The respondents in reply before the Tribunal have stated that the Tribunal has no authority to punish the respondents for contempt, if any. 4. On raising the query whether the Tribunal is competent to make a reference to this Court or not, counsel for the respondents submits that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to punish for contempt, although the order of the Tribunal dated 13.5.2007 has not been challenged by way of writ petition but there is some difficulty in implementing the same. Mr. Baig further submits that there is no specific provisions in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for making reference to the High Court in case the order of the Tribunal is not complied with. 5. I have gone through record of the writ petition and further considered the aforesaid submissions of the counsel for the parties. 6. Before proceeding further, I would like to quote Sections 6, 8 and 10 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters) Appellate Tribunal Act, 1976 giving finality to the judgment of the Tribunal and further ousting the jurisdiction of the Civil Court which makes the Tribunal a `Court' as referred in Sec. 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 which has been interpreted in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Thakur Jugal Kishore Sinha vs. The Sitamarhi Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. and another AIR 1967 SC 1494 . Section 2(b) and 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 are also relevant to be quoted. Section 2(b) and 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 are also relevant to be quoted. Relevant portion of paras 11, 20, 24 and 26 of the Thakur Jugal Kishore Sinha vs. The Sitamarhi Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. and another (supra) and Sec. 2 and 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 are as under: Sections 6, 8 and 10 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Service Matters) Appellate Tribunal, Act, 1976 Sec. 6 6. Powers of Tribunal.-(1) The Tribunal shall, for the purpose of the disposal of the appeal under this Act, have the powers of a Civil Court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act 5 of 1908) in respect of the following matters, namely: (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person; (b) requiring the discovery and production of any documents; and (c) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents. (2) The Tribunal may examine on oath any person supposed to be acquainted with the matter under probe or any fact relevant thereto and may record his evidence. (3) The proceedings before the Tribunal shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Section 193 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Central Act No. 45 of 1860). (4) The Tribunal shall be deemed to be a civil Court for the purpose of Sections 345 and 346 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974) and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (Central Act 70 of 1971)." Sec. 8 8. Decision of the Tribunal to be final.-The decision of the Tribunal shall be final and implemented within the reasonable time to be specified by the Tribunal. Sec. 10 "10. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court excluded.- No suit or other proceedings shall lie or be instituted in any Civil Court with respect to any matter arising under or provided for by this Act. Section 2(b) and 10 of the Centempt of Courts Act, 1971 Sec. 2(b) 2. Definitions.-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a) ..... (b) "civil contempt" means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court; (c) ...... (d)......" Sec. 10 10. Section 2(b) and 10 of the Centempt of Courts Act, 1971 Sec. 2(b) 2. Definitions.-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a) ..... (b) "civil contempt" means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court; (c) ...... (d)......" Sec. 10 10. Power of High Court to punish contempts of subordinate courts.- Every High Court shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction, powers and authority, in accordance with the same procedure and practice, in respect of contempts of courts subordinate to it as it has and exercise in respect of contempts of itself: Provided that no High Court shall take cognizance of a contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a court subordinate to it where such contempt is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code. (45 of 1860). Thakur Jugal Kishore Sinha vs. The Sitamarhi Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. and another ( AIR 1967 SC 1494 ) Relevant portion of Paras 11 and 20 "A Registrar exercising powers under S. 48 must be held to discharge the duties which would otherwise have fallen on the ordinary civil and revenue Courts of the land. The Registrar has not merely the trappings of a Court but in many respects he is given the same powers as are given to ordinary civil Courts of the land by the Code of Civil Procedure including the power to summon and examine witnesses on oath, the power to order inspection of documents, to hear the parties after framing issues, to review his own order and even exercise the inherent jurisdiction of Courts mentioned in S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In adjudicating upon a dispute referred under S. 48 of the Act, the Registrar is to all intents and purposes, a Court discharging the same functions and duties in the same manner as a Court of Law is expected to do. In adjudicating upon a dispute referred under S. 48 of the Act, the Registrar is to all intents and purposes, a Court discharging the same functions and duties in the same manner as a Court of Law is expected to do. Therefore, an Assistant Registrar discharging the function of Registrar under S. 48 read with S. 6(2) of Bihar and Orissa Cooperative Societies Act, is a Court." Relevant portion of Para 24 "Article 228 does not indicate that unless a High Court can withdraw a case to itself from another Court for disposing of a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution, the latter Court is not subordinate to the High Court. This Article is only intended to confer jurisdiction and power on the High Court to withdraw a case for the purpose mentioned above from the ordinary Courts of Law whose decision may, in the normal course of things, be taken up to the High Court by way of an appeal. Article 227 is of wider ambit; it does not limit the jurisdiction of the High Court to the hierarchy of Courts functioning directly under it under the Civil Procedure Code and Criminal Procedure Code but it gives the High Court power to correct error of various kinds of all Courts and tribunals in appropriate cases. Needless to add that errors as to the interpretation of the Constitution is not out of the purview of Art. 227 although the High Court could not, under the powers conferred by this Article, withdraw a case to itself from a tribunal and dispose of the same, or determine merely the question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution arising before the tribunal. The subordination for the purpower of S. 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act means judicial subordination and not subordination under the hierarchy of Courts under the Civil Procedure Code or the Criminal Procedure Code." Relevant portion of Para 26 "Thus, the Assistant Registrar functioning under Bihar and Orissa Cooperative Societies Act is a Court subordinate to High Court for purpose of S. 3 of Contempt of Court Act." 7. In K.P. Verma vs. State of Bihar and Others (1989 Lab. In K.P. Verma vs. State of Bihar and Others (1989 Lab. IC 2047) under the Bihar Administrative Tribunal Act, 1981, jurisdiction of the Court was ousted and the judgment of the Tribunal was given finality under the provisions of Bihar Administrative Tribunal Act, 1981 and the Division Bench of the said Court has held that the meaning of `Court' within the Evidence Act and the Contempt of Courts Act will cover the `Tribunal'. Relevant portion of paras 20, 21, 32 and 35 of the aforesaid judgment are as under: Relevant portion of paras 20, 21, 32 and 35 of K.P. Verma vs. State of Bihar Para 20 and 21 "There is no doubt that a Civil Court has the plenary jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature unless its jurisdiction is expressly or by necessary implication barred under any statute as provided for in S. 9 of the Civil P.C. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court can be ousted by any statute whether the same is enacted by the State Legislature or by the Parliament. In view of the express provision contained in S. 9 of the Civil P.C. No. litigant can be said to have any legal far less any constitutional right to get his grievances adjudicated by a Civil Court. There are various statues which provide for constitution of statutory Tribunals which tribunals have exclusive jurisdiction to deal with matters which come within the purview of such Acts under which such Tribunals are constituted and in respect of such matters Civil Court's jurisdiction are ousted. Such tribunals are not necessarily real substitutes for Civil Court. There are various Tribunals which are presided over by an executive officer and not by a judicial officer and the procedure to follow in such tribunals may be summary in nature as compared to elaborate procedures followed in a Civil Court. Before such tribunal, even the provisions of the Evidence Act may not be applicable and still then it cannot be said that such statutes are ultra vires the Constitution. It may further be borne in mind that although a person having a cause of action has a right to have his grievances adjudicated but has no right to get the dispute adjudicated in a particular forum. Moreover in any event the litigant will have a right to challenge the orders of such statutory tribunal before a High Court under Arts. Moreover in any event the litigant will have a right to challenge the orders of such statutory tribunal before a High Court under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, as all such courts and tribunals constituted under any legislative Act are subject to the control and superintendence of the High Court. Para 32 "However, there cannot be any doubt that these administrative Tribu-nals or the administrative courts are authorities outside the ordinary Court system which interpret and apply the laws when acts of public administration are attacked in formal suits or by other established methods. In essence the administrative Tribunals may be called a specialized court of law, although it does not fulfil the criteria of a law court as is understood inasmuch as it cannot like an ordinary law court entertain suits on various matters, including the matter relating to the vires of legislation. However, such a Tribunal like ordinary law courts, are bound by the rules of evidence and procedure as laid down under the lawand are required to decide strictly, as per the law. Para 35 "It is now well settled that a statutory Tribunal which has been conferred with the power to adjudicate a dispute and pass necessary order has also the power to implement its order. Further, the Act which is a self contained Code even if it has not been specifically spelt out must be deemed to have conferred upon the Tribunal all powers in order to make its order effective. 8. The same has been interpreted with reference to the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 and there is no difference in the language of Sec. 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 9. In view of the above, the reference could be made for punishment under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1972. 10. Since the Tribunal is legally authorised to deal with the matter, in judicial or quasi judicial manner and civil court's jurisdiction is ousted and fur-ther no appeal has been provided, therefore, the respondents are bound to act in accordance with the judgment of the Tribunal unless it is stayed or set aside by the High Court. Moreover, in the present case the judgment of the Tribunal dated 13.5.2007 has not been challenged by the State by way of writ petition. 11. Moreover, in the present case the judgment of the Tribunal dated 13.5.2007 has not been challenged by the State by way of writ petition. 11. Non implementation of the judgment of the Tribunal tantamounts to mockery and makes the Tribunal teeth-less, although teeth have been provided under Section 2(b) r/w Sec. 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which are seldom used by the Tribunal. The aforesaid inaction on the part of the Tribunal makes the order passed by it ineffective which is not the object of the Act of 1976. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the Tribunal to ensure compliance of its judgment and order dated 13.7.2005 in Appeal No. 1578/2001 within a period of one month and in case the respondents fail to comply with the same, then the Tribunal is directed to make reference under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India to this Court for taking appropriate action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.