Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. Hence, this special appeal.

12. At the very outset, a preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents as to maintainability of this intra-Court appeal in view of Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, which provides for an appeal directly to Supreme Court against any decree of the High Court passed on such appeal.

13. learned Counsel in support of his objections, placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in Union of India v. The Mohindra Supply Co., and two decisions of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. DR (J)560/2001: Laxmi Udhyog v. UOI, decided on 7.12.2001, and UOI v. Maheshwari Builders,: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1/2001 decided on 4.12.2001. He also placed reliance on a Bench decision of this Court in State of Raj. and Ors. v. Central Administrative Tribunal and Ors., D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2519/2000 and D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2520/2000 decided on 30.8.2001, which arose out of the order passed by the CAT in a contempt case.

18. However, the Writ Petition in the case of an order passed on a contempt application was held to be not maintainable by this Court following the decision of Supreme Court in T. Sudhakar Prasad v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, (2001) 1 SCC 516. The Supreme Court has made a distinction between the case of order passed under Section 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act and Section 19 of the Act. Where the Tribunal exercises its jurisdiction under Section 17 of the Act of 1985, it is exercised as a Tribunal in addition to High Court and not as a substitute of High Court and in doing that it acts as a Tribunal subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Article 226/227 of the Constitution and, therefore, orders passed by CAT under Section 17 of the Act of 1985 are amendable to the jurisdiction of the High Court notwithstanding an appeal may lie to the Supreme Court under Article 136. But while exercising jurisdiction under Section 19 in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish contempt of Court, the Tribunal acts not as an Additional Tribunal subordinate to the High Court, but acts as substitute of High Court itself and discharge the functions as a High Court under the Contempt of Courts Act and it being a Court of co-ordinate jurisdiction, no petition lay to the High Court under Article 226 because the order passed by CAT in contempt jurisdiction in view of the relevant provisions of Central Administrative Tribunal Act, read with Article 323-A and of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1972 is not an order passed by a Tribunal subordinate to High Court.