Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

clause (a) or inquiring into any complaint referred to in sub-clause (b) of clause (5), have all the powers of a civil court trying a suit and in particular in respect of the following matters, namely:-

(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person from any part of India and examining him on oath;
(b) requiring the discovery and production of any document; 
                 (c)    receiving evidence on affidavits;

                 (d)     requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any court or
                       office;

                 (e)    issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses and documents;

                 (f)    any other matter which the President may, by rule, determine."



23)              Nothing contained in the provision of Article 338A including clause (5) thereof
indicates that the respondent no. 1 Commission was envisaged as an additional authority to enforce any laws in force in the Country. The conferment of power of a Civil Court is limited to summoning witnesses and to record evidence. The mere conferment of limited power of a civil Court would not make the respondent no.1 a civil Court. It has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Registrar General , Gauhati High Court Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2014) 3 GLR 379, that Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 is applicable in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. The said Act provides for establishment of Civil Courts, as such, the respondent no.1 Commission having not been declared to be a Civil Court for the State of Arunachal Pradesh, cannot become a Civil Court merely on the strength of conferment of limited power of civil court vide clause (8) of Article 338A of the Constitution of India. For the sake of appreciating the argument advanced, even by assuming that there exists an award for payment of Rs.523.00 Crore under the 2013 Act, there is nothing in Article 338A of the Constitution of India, which permits the respondent no. 1 Commission to start enforcing the purported award passed under 2013 Act merely on account of the Page No.# 13/23 projection made by the respondent no.2 that all the beneficiary of the award were members of Scheduled Tribes.
25) Sub-Clause (a) of Clause (5) of Article 338A of the Constitution of India provides power to "investigate" and "monitor". The learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2 could not show any provision of law or any authority on the point by which the authority to "investigate" or "monitor" all matters relating to the safeguards provided to the Scheduled Tribes under the Constitution of India or any other law for time being in force"
would empower the respondent no.1 Commission to "investigate" to find out which Land Acquisition Act was applicable for acquisition, or to "monitor" that within what particular time an award passed under the 2013 Act should be paid, and to "investigate" whether or not payment has been made in compliance of the orders passed by the respondent no. 1 in connection with payment of land acquisition compensation. The 2013 Act is not meant only for the benefit of persons from Scheduled Tribes. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be accepted that by enforcing award under the 2013 Act, the respondent no.1 was safeguarding the interest of members of Scheduled Tribe.
26) By no stretch of imagination, this was not a case where the respondent no. 1 Commission was investigating or monitoring whether the safeguards provided for Schedule Tribes under the Constitution or under any law for the time being in force or under any order of the government was not being complied with by the petitioner and no such finding has Page No.# 14/23 been recorded in the impugned minutes. In the absence of any law conferring upon the Commission established under Article 338A of the Constitution of India the power and jurisdiction to enforce an award purportedly passed under 2013 Act, the Court is unable to accept that the non-disbursement of award passed under 2013 Act can be read as there was a violation of safeguards provided for the Scheduled Tribes . If such a broad meaning is given to sub-clause (a) of clause (5) of Article 338A of the Constitution of India, it would amount to permit the respondent no.1 Commission to function as an extra- judicial and/or an extra-