Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. On the other hand, Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that the power is there to the Commission in light of Article 338(5) of the Constitution of India. He draws attention of the Court to Article 338 of the Constitution of India and submits that how the Commission is having power, it is discussed in Clause (a) to (f) of the said Article. By way of placing this, he submits that the Commission was already having power and that is why the impugned order has been passed. There is no illegality in the impugned order. He further refers Rule 7.5 of Rules of Procedure of National Commission for Scheduled Caste and submits that by way of separate Rule, further power is conferred to the National Commission for Scheduled Castes. On these grounds, he submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order.

11. From joint reading of Article 338 of the Constitution of India and Rule 7.5 of the Rules of Procedure of National Commission for Scheduled Caste, it transpires that the power vested with the Commission of enquiry and submission of report cannot be extended to adjudication of disputes between an individual and a corporation or a statutory authority. The powers conferred do not contemplates that the Commission can examine the matter like a Civil Court and adjudicate the dispute and pronounce a judgment either interim or final. In view of the said Article, the Commission is not a Tribunal or a forum discharging the functions of a judicial character or a Court. Article 338 does not entrust the said Commission with the powers to take up the role of a Court or an adjudicatory tribunal and to determine the rights inter-se the parties. No doubt, under clause 8 of Article 338, the Commission has been given all the powers of the Civil Court trying a suit but the said powers are to be exercised while investigating any matter referred to in sub - clause „a‟ or enquiry into any complaint referred to under sub-clause „b‟ of Clause 5. Clause (8) of Article 338 of the Constitution of India was the subject matter before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India; [(1996) 6 SC 606]. Paragraph 10 of the said judgment is quoted herein below:

"10. Interestingly, here, in clause (8) of Article 338, the words used are "the Commission shall... have all the powers of the Civil Court trying a suit". But the words "all the powers of a Civil Court" have to be exercised "while investigating any matter referred to in sub-clause (a) or inquiring into any complaint referred to in sub-clause (b) of clause 5". All the procedural powers of a civil court are given to the Commission for the purpose of investigating and inquiring into these matters and that too for that limited purpose only. The powers of a civil court of granting injunctions, temporary or permanent, do not infere in the Commission nor can such a power be inferred or derived from a reading of clause (8) of Article 338 of the Constitution."

(Emphasis Supplied)

14. Article 338(5) of the Constitution of India was considered by Delhi High Court in Indian Institute of Technology v. National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes; [111 (2004) DLT 155] wherein it has been held in paragraph 15 as under:

"15. It will thus be seen from the aforesaid that it is only in specific matters that the power of civil court has been conferred on Respondent No. 1 Commission. This aspect has also to be examined keeping in mind the duties of the Commission set out in Article 338(5) which has to investigate and monitor all matters relating to safeguarding the rights of the scheduled caste and scheduled tribes and to enquire into specific complaint with respect to deprivation of the rights and safeguarding. The jurisdiction is advisory in nature but it is only for the purpose of investigating of the complaint that the powers of civil court have been conferred in respect of certain matters."