Sunil Chandra Son of Kunwar Singh vs Union of India

Issue notice as to why this petition for writ be not accepted, as prayed. Shri Jagdish Vyas, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of both the respondents; service, as such, is sufficient. With consent of the parties the matter is finally heard.

Counsel for all parties pray that the order passed by the Tribunal by which it has been held that the LARSGESS Scheme is ultra vires of the Constitution be set aside. Common submissions have been made by the counsel for all the parties that parties were not granted opportunity to address arguments with respect to the vires of the scheme. Counsel also uniformly submit that no pleading exists on the record of the Tribunal with respect to the vires of the Scheme. Counsel further submitted that both the Categories I & II support the scheme and submits that it is for the safety of the passengers and also for the staff of the Railway.

Counsel for the parties strongly urged before the Court that the scheme was formulated having regard to the working of Driver and Gangmen, who play a crucial role with regard to the safe running of the train and maintenance of the tracks. The scheme was thereafter extended to three categories all of which are concerned with the safety of the run of the train. Counsel further submitted that a complete reading of the scheme would show that stringent safeguards have been worked out and only thereafter the scheme would be implemented.

In the case of Mallikarjuna Rao and Ors. (supra), the Apex Court has frowned upon the observations of the High Court and observed that it is neither legal nor proper for the High Courts or the Administrative Tribunals to issue directions or advisory-sermons to the executive in respect of the sphere which is exclusively within their domain. Similar view has been expressed in the case of Sumangala Naganath (supra), wherein it was held that a matter of policy is not debatable in judicial forum. In the case of Bharat Amratlal Kotyhari (supra), the Supreme Court of India after observing that although the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable to proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but the general principles of the Code would apply. The Apex Court also observed that the Court would also grant those reliefs specifically prayed by the petitioner, although the High court had wide powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and would be empowered to mould relief to meet the ends of justice but granting a relief not prayed for would result in serious prejudice to the rights of interested party.

Having regard to the submission made and the settled position of the law, we find that the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction and decided an issue which was neither urged before the Tribunal nor the parties were heard on this issue. We are rather surprised that once the observations of the Division Bench of Jaipur High Court was available with the Tribunal and reproduced by the Tribunal in para 13 of the impugned order, there was no reason as to why the Tribunal decided to ignore those directions, even otherwise, in the absence of the observations in our view the Tribunal could not have decided an issue on which there were no pleadings and no opportunity of hearing granted. Resultantly, we allow these writ petitions and remand the matters back for fresh hearing. Impugned orders in all the writ petitions are set aside. All Writ petitions and pending applications are disposed of.

These matters will be taken up before the Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur on 3.07.2017 to fix a date for further proceedings in the original applications before the Tribunal.