AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Markandey Katju, C.J.—This writ petition has been filed by the Service Bar Association which is an Association of lawyers practising
before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act.
The prayer in this petition is a general prayer directing the respondents to withdraw all the cases pending in the Tamil Nadu Administrative
Tribunal and to transfer them to this Court for decision by the High Court.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Advocate General.
The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal was constituted u/s 4(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 on 12.12.1988 and we are informed
that as on date about 34,000 cases are pending there.
We are informed that presently there is no Presiding Officer in the Tribunal and the State Government has sent a proposal to the Central
Government for abolition of the Tribunal and the matter is pending with the Central Government. The position is therefore that while legally the
Tribunal continues to exist, but factually it is non functional as there is no Presiding Officer or Member to hear the cases nor is the State
Government interested in continuing the Tribunal. The result is that the cases of persons who filed petitions before the Tribunal cannot be heard and
decided, and this is causing great hardship and suffering to the petitioners.
Citizens in this country have a right to get justice. However because of the non functioning of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the cases
of the petitioners in the Tribunal are not being heard and thus they are being deprived of justice. We are of the opinion that this is not fair to the
petitioners as every one in this country has a right to go to court and ask for justice.
Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the High Court has the power of superintendence and this includes the power to transfer cases
from one Court to another vide:
Mohamed Abdul Raoof and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 38 1951 Hyd. 50.
S. Srinivas Rao Vs. High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Others, .
Kanniammal and Another Vs. P. Narayanan and Another, .
Ritz Hotels (Mysore) Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, .
Mohamed Baquar Hussain Qureshi v. The State of yderabad AIR (38) 1951 Hyd. 82.
Maharaj Kumar Gajbir Singh and Another Vs. Maharaja Satbir Singh and Others, .
Wali Mahammad Vs. Manik Chandra Raul, .
Lalita Rajya Lakshmi and Another Vs. State of Bihar and Another, .
Pyda Venkatanarayana and Another Vs. Thota Ramaswamy and Others, .
In Rajeswari Vs. United India Insurance Co., , this Court has held that even in the absence of any provision having been made in the Motor
Vehicles Act for transfer of a case from one Tribunal to another, the High Court under Article 227 has power to transfer a case from one Tribunal
to another. The same view has been followed by another Honourable Judge of this Court in Kanniammal and Another Vs. P. Narayanan and
Another, where reliance has also been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat etc. Vs. Vakhtsinghji Sursinghji Vaghela
and Others etc., .
No doubt, a learned single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Muragani Ramalingam Vs. Kondapalli Gurumurthy Reddy, has held that
the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to transfer cases from a court or Tribunal does not include the power to transfer a case to
the High Court itself. The reasoning given by the learned single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court is that the power of the High Court to
transfer a case to itself is contained in Article 228 exclusively and hence it cannot be said to be a power conferred by Article 227. We respectfully
disagree with the view taken by the learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Article 228 does not any where say that that provision is an
exclusive provision in the Constitution for transferring cases by the High Court to itself. In our opinion, Article 227 is wide enough to confer power
to the High Court to transfer a case from a subordinate Court or a Tribunal to the High Court itself in certain exceptional and special situations
where the interest of justice so requires. After all, justice has to be done, and if the High Court finds that justice is not being done due to some
special situation, as is the case here, then certainly Article 227 is wide enough to give power to the High Court to ensure that justice is done by
transferring the cases from a non functional Tribunal to the High Court itself so that justice may be done.
We hence hold that the power under Article 227 of the Constitution is wide enough to confer power to the High Court to transfer a case from
a subordinate court or a Tribunal to the High Court itself in certain exceptional/special situations if the interest of justice so warrants as is the case
here.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that we should direct that all the cases pending before the Tribunal should be transferred to this
Court. We do not accept this contention because it is only if a petitioner before the Tribunal wants his case to be transferred to this Court then we
can transfer it. If a petitioner does not want his case to be transferred to the High Court surely we cannot compel him to do so. Hence we dispose
off this petition with a direction that if any of the petitioners who had filed a petition before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal wishes to get his
case transferred, he may file a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and in such eventuality, this Court will transfer that case from the file of
the Tribunal to itself forthwith so that the matter can be disposed off expeditiously. We feel it necessary to issue this direction as we are informed
that a large number of petitioners are suffering as their cases have not been heard by the Tribunal for a long period and many of them have become
old and require immediate relief. The writ petition is accordingly disposed off. No costs.