'Petition Seeking Writ Of Quo Warranto Misconceived': SC Dismisses Plea Challenging Appointment Of ITAT Vice Presidents

The Supreme Court upheld the Madras High Court judgment dismissing challenge against appointment of two persons as Vice Presidents of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

No recourse to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court to seek a writ of quo warranto could have been taken, the bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala observed.

Aniruthan, a lawyer, had earlier approached the Madras High Court by filing a petition seeking a writ of quo warranto against Mr. Rajpal Yadav and Mr. Mahavir Singh, the Vice Presidents of ITAT. His contention was that the constitution of the Search-cum-Selection Committee was not in accordance with either the dictum of the Supreme Court in Rojer Mathew vs. South Indian Bank Ltd., (2020) 6 SCC 1 or in accordance with the law existing previously. According to him, the interim orders passed in Rojer Mathew would not save the appointment as those interim orders were only applicable to appointments made when the writ petitions that were disposed of in Rojer Mathew were pending. The High Court dismissed his writ petition observing that he completely failed to establish that the appointments are contrary to the relevant parent Act or the rules framed thereunder.

In appeal, the Apex Court bench, while dismissing the SLP, observed:

"The High Court has entered upon the submission which was urged by the petitioner. We are of the considered view that no recourse to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court to seek a writ of quo warranto could have been taken. There is no challenge to the eligibility of the fourth and fifth respondents. If there are other remedies available in respect of the alleged breach of the directions in Roger Mathew vs South Indian Bank Limited and Others (supra), it is open to an aggrieved individual to pursue such remedies in accordance with law. There is no dispute about the fact that the fourth and fifth respondents meet the eligibility requirements for holding the office to which they have been appointed. The appointments were made in January 2020."

The court clarified that it has not entered upon the correctness of the reasoning of the High Court. It also granted petitioner the liberty to intervene in the proceedings which are pending before it in the petition instituted by the Madras Bar Association.

Rojer Mathew Judgment

In Rojer Mathew, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 184 of the Finance Act 2017, which empowers the Central Government to frame rules relating to appointment and service conditions of members of various tribunals. At the same time, the five judges bench struck down the Rules already framed by the Central Government under Section 184, and directed the formulation of new rules. The Court passed an interim order that the appointments of members of the tribunals should be carried out as per their respective parent Acts till the Centre comes up with new rules under Section 184. On the point whether Finance Act 2017 could have been passed as a money bill, the Court said that examination by a larger bench was necessary and referred the same.

Case details

Aniruthan vs Union Of India | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 960 | SLP(C) 13429/2021 | 14 Nov 2022 | CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, Sr. Adv. Mr. B. Karunakaran, Adv. Mr. K. Balambihai, Adv. Mr. Anoop Prakash Awasthi, AOR 

Headnotes

Constitution of India, 1950 ; Article 226 -  Quo Warranto - SLP against Madras HC judgment dismissing petition seeking a writ of quo warranto against Vice Presidents of ITAT appointed in January 2020 alleging that procedure for selection was contrary to the decision in Roger Mathew vs South Indian Bank Limited (2020) 6 SCC 1 - Dismissed - No recourse to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court to seek a writ of quo warranto could have been taken -There is no challenge to the eligibility - We have not entered upon the correctness of the reasoning of the High Court - Petitioner granted liberty to intervene in the pending proceedings in the petition instituted by the Madras Bar Association.

Click here to Read/Download Order