Administrative Tribunals Act | Appeal Against CAT Order In Contempt Proceedings Lies Before Supreme Court, Not High Court: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that an appeal against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal while exercising its contempt jurisdiction under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 lies before the Supreme Court under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Court held that no such order can be challenged before the High Court under Article 226 of...
The Allahabad High Court has held that an appeal against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal while exercising its contempt jurisdiction under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 lies before the Supreme Court under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The Court held that no such order can be challenged before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The bench comprising of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Donadi Ramesh held
“Since proceeding for contempt under Section 17 of the Act, 1985 is dealt with by the Bench of not less than two Members and the order passed under Section 17 of the Act, 1985 would be appealable before the Supreme Court only. Therefore, any order or decision of the Tribunal under the Act, 1971 shall be appealable only to the Supreme Court within 60 days from the date of the order.”
Relevant Statutory Provisions
Article 323A of the Constitution of India empowers the Parliament to frame laws for administrative tribunals and conditions governing the employment of its members. Clause 2 (b) of Article 323A provides that the Parliament may frame laws regarding jurisdiction and powers of the tribunals including their powers to punish for contempt.
Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act provides that unless expressly provided in the Act, the Central Administrative Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable immediately before that day by all courts except the Supreme Court in relation to matters provided therein.
Section 17 of the Act of 1985 empowers the Tribunal to exercise the same power of contempt of itself as is granted to the High Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 empowers the High Court to try a contempt of itself or of a subordinate court to it where the contempt is committed within its jurisdiction or outside it. Section 12 provides the punishment for such contempt. Section 19 lays down the provision as to where an appeal against an order under the Act of 1971 would lie.
Factual Background
Petitioners filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) wherein they were granted appointment as regular Assistant Medical Officers with consequential benefits. Due to non-compliance of the said order, petitioners filed a contempt petition before CAT.
Finding that the order had been complied with in merits, CAT closed the contempt proceedings. The closure of contempt proceedings was challenged before the High Court where preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition was raised. Counsel for respondent argued that the writ petition was not maintainable in view of Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 read with Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
High Court Verdict
The Court observed that there is no statutory remedy of appeal against order passed under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. However, against orders passed under contempt jurisdiction would be appealable under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
“The provisions of the Act, 1971 are in addition to and not in derogation of Article 129 and 215 of the Constitution. The jurisdiction contemplated by Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution is unalienable and it cannot be taken away or whittled down by any legislative enactment subordinate to the Constitution.”
The Court relied on T. Sudhakar Prasad v. Government of A.P. where a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court placing reliance on L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Ors held that Article 323-A(2)(b) or Article 323-B (3) (d) of the Constitution of India or Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunal Act are not ultra vires. It was held that even though the High Courts exercised jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for orders under Section 14(1), the orders under Section 17 of the Act of 1985 were appealable under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act before the Supreme Court only.
“Section 19 of the Act, 1971 provides for appeal and by virtue of Section 17 of the Act, 1985, the word 'High Court' shall be read as 'Tribunal'. Accordingly, any order or decision of the Tribunal punishing for contempt is appealable under Section 19 of the Act to the Supreme Court only. The Supreme Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar (supra) has nowhere said that the orders of the Tribunal under the contempt proceedings shall also be subject to the judicial scrutiny of the High Court under Articles 226 / 227 of the Constitution despite of having remedy of appeal provided by Section 19 of the Act, 1971.”
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition.
Case Title: Dr Brajendra Singh Chauhan And 2 Others v. Central Administrative Tribunal And 2 Others [WRIT - A No. - 602 of 2024]