Karnataka High Court
Sri Babin Bopanna K vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 July, 2023
Author: G.Narendar
Bench: G.Narendar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:23944-DB
WP No. 7012 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 7012 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI BABIN BOPANNA K
S/O SRI BOPANNA K C
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
WORKING AS DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES
MANDYA-571401
2. SRI VIVEK R
S/O SRI RAMA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES
HASSAN-573201
3. SRI GANESHA R
S/O SRI REVAPPA M S
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
Digitally signed
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES
by BHARATHI CHITRADURGA-577501
S
Location: HIGH
...PETITIONERS
COURT OF (BY SRI. NAGARAJ D., ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND
FISHERIES DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560001
2. THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:23944-DB
WP No. 7012 of 2023
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE OF FISHERIES,
V V TOWER, III FLOOR
BENGALURU-560001
3. SRI KUMAR L
S/O SRI LAKSHMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES
KUVEMPU NAGAR
TUMKUR-572101
4. SRI G S SHADAKSHARI
S/O SRI GOWRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES
B H ROAD
SHIVAMOGGA - 527201.
5 SRI MAHESH KUMAR
S/O SRI U BABU
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES
OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL
DIRECTOR- ENVIRONMENT
III FLOOR, MUDA BUILDING
MANGALURU 575006.
6 SRI SUDHIR P
S/O SRI PARAMASHIVAIAH
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE OF FISHERIES
V V TOWER, III FLOOR
BENGALURU 560001.
7 SRI GIREESHA O
S/O SRI M S OMKARAPPA
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE OF FISHERIES
V V TOWER, III FLOOR
BENGALURU 560001.
8 SRI SIDDAIAH D
S/O NARASABAILAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
JOINT DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:23944-DB
WP No. 7012 of 2023
ON DEPUTATION TO THE POST OF
MANAGING DIRECTOR
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT SAHAKARI
MEENU MARATHA MAHAMANDI,
KARWAR 581301.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT SHILPA S GOGI, AGA FOR R1 & R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE WRIT QUASHING ORDER DATED 22/07/2021 PASSED
BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NOS. 1979-1983/2021
VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
G. NARENDAR J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for the respondents.
2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed on the application preferred by Respondent Nos.3, 4, 5, 6, 7 herein. It is fairly submitted that the Petitioners were not arrayed as parties in the said application before the Tribunal. It is contended that the observation of the Tribunal are adverse to the interest of the petitioners. Hence, claim of the Petitioners are justified.
3. In this regard the issue that arises for consideration is no more res integra. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of -4- NC: 2023:KHC:23944-DB WP No. 7012 of 2023 Rajeev Kumar and Another Vs. Hemraj Singh Chauhan & Ors.1 has been pleased to observe and hold in para Nos.7 to 13 as under:
"7. However, while answering the objection on their locus standi, the appellants referred to the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and others - [(1997) 3 SCC 261] and in particular to paragraph 99, page 311 at placita f & g of the Report and contended that in view of the law declared in Chandra Kumar, they can come before the High Court and raise their grievances against the judgment of CAT as their interests have been affected by that judgment even though they were not parties to the proceedings in which the said judgment was rendered.
8. This Court is of the view that the understanding of the ratio in L.Chandra Kumar (supra) by the learned counsel for the appellants in this case is not correct and the ratio in Chandra Kumar (supra) is just to the contrary.
9. The Constitution Bench in Chandra Kumar (supra) held that the power of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is a part of the basic structure of our Constitution (See paragraphs 78 & 79, pages 301 and 302 of the report). The Constitution Bench also held that various Tribunals created under Articles 323-A and 323-B of the Constitution, will function as Court of first instance and are subject to the power of judicial review of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The Constitution Bench also held that these Tribunals are empowered even to deal with constitutional questions and can also examine the vires of statutory legislation, except the vires of the legislation which creates the particular Tribunal.1
2010(4) SCC 554 -5- NC: 2023:KHC:23944-DB WP No. 7012 of 2023
10. In para 93, at p. 309 of the Report, the Constitution Bench specifically held: (L.Chandra Kumar Case) "93....We may add that the Tribunals will, however, continue to act as the only courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted...."
(Emphasis added)
12. The Constitution Bench explained the said statement of law by reiterating in the next sentence: (L.Chandra Kumar Case (supra), SCC p. 309, para 93) "93....By this, we mean that it will not be open for litigants to directly approach the High Courts even in cases where they question the vires of statutory legislations (except, as mentioned, where the legislation which creates the particular Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal concerned.
11. On a proper reading of these two sentences, it is clear:
(a) The Tribunals will function as the only Court of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted.
(b) Even where any challenge is made to the vires of legislation, excepting the legislation under which Tribunal has been set up, in such cases also, litigants will not be able to directly approach the High Court `overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal'.
12. The aforesaid propositions have been repeated again by the Constitution Bench (in L. Chandra Kumar case) in the penultimate paragraph 99 at page 311 of the report in the following words:
"99...The Tribunals will, nevertheless, continue to act like courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted. It will not, therefore, be open for litigants to directly approach the High Courts even in cases where they question the vires of statutory legislations (except where the legislation -6- NC: 2023:KHC:23944-DB WP No. 7012 of 2023 which creates the particular Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal concerned...."
13. In view of such repeated and authoritative pronouncement by the Constitution Bench of this Court, the approach made to the High Court for the first time by these appellants in respect of their service disputes over which CAT has jurisdiction, is not legally sustainable. The Division Bench of the High Court, with great respect, fell into an error by allowing the appellants to treat the High Court as a Court of first instance in respect of their service disputes, for adjudication of which C.A.T. has been constituted. "
4. In view of the above, Writ Petition is disposed of with liberty to the Petitioners to seek remedy in the manner set out by the Hon'ble Apex Court supra.
5. In view of the disposal of petition, pending I.As. do not survive for consideration. Costs made easy.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE BS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19