Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

124. In the result, the question framed by the Court is answered in the following terms: in exercise of the power vested in it Under Section 14(b) of the TRAI Act, TDSAT does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the challenge to the Regulations framed by TRAI Under Section 36 of the TRAI Act.

In the present case, it is clear that Section 16 of the NGT Act is cast in terms that are similar to Section 14(b) of the Telecom http://www.judis.nic.in Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997, in that appeals are against the orders, decisions, directions, or determinations made under the various Acts mentioned in Section 16. It is clear, therefore, that under the NGT Act, the Tribunal exercising appellate jurisdiction cannot strike down Rules or Regulations made under this Act. Therefore, it would be fallacious to state that the Tribunal has powers of judicial review akin to that of a High Court exercising constitutional powers Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We must never forget the distinction between a superior court of record and courts of limited jurisdiction that was, in the felicitous language of Gajendragadkar, C.J., in Re: Special Reference, (1965) 1 SCR 413, made in the following words:

We ought to make it clear that we are dealing with the question of jurisdiction and are not concerned with the propriety or reasonableness of the exercise of such jurisdiction. Besides, in the case of a superior Court of Record, it is for the court to consider whether any matter falls within its jurisdiction or not. Unlike a Court of limited jurisdiction, the superior Court is entitled to determine for itself questions about its own jurisdiction. "Prima facie", says Halsbury, "no matter is deemed to be beyond the jurisdiction of a superior court unless it is expressly shown to be so, while nothing is within the jurisdiction of an inferior court unless it is expressly shown on the face of the proceedings that the particular matter is within the cognizance of the particular court [Halsbury's Laws of England, vol. 9, p. 349]. For this reason also, we are of the view that the State Government order made Under Section 18 of the Water Act, not being the subject matter of any appeal Under Section 16 of the NGT Act, cannot be "judicially reviewed" by the NGT. Following the judgment in BSNL (supra), we are of the view that http://www.judis.nic.in the NGT has no general power of judicial review akin to that vested Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India possessed by the High Courts of this country. Shri Sundaram's strong reliance on the NGT judgment dated 17.07.2014 in Wilfred v. Ministry of Environment and Forests must also be rejected as this NGT judgment does not state the law on this aspect correctly. This contention is also without merit, and therefore, rejected."