Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Article 338 in Ragho vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 2 July, 2019Matching Fragments
14. Powers conferred upon the Commission under Section 11 of the Act of 1995. Section 11 of the Act of 1995 have already been quoted in the judgment of Shayam Lal (Supra). From perusal of the same it is clear that the commission cannot issue direction to the District Magistrate and Senior Superintendent of Police to forcefully evict the petitioner from his property in question.
15. The Commission is clothed with the power of summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person for a limited purpose as contained in Article 338 of the Constitution of India. By virtue of powers confer under Article 338 of the Constitution the Commission does not become Civil Court which does not have power to adjudicate the rights of the parties in order to issue any direction or injunction on merits.
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 inhere in the Commission nor can such a power be inferred or derived from a reading of clause 8 of Article 338 of the Constitution.
"6. It is not possible to agree with the learned senior counsel that the Commission under Article 338 of the Constitution of India is an adjudicatory body which can issue binding directions or injunction orders. ....
.....While conferring limited powers of a civil court for some purposes, Article 338 has not given the Commission, the power to adjudicate and pass binding and executable decrees like a civil court.
...It is clear from the reading of Clauses 6-8 that the reports made by the Commission are recommendatory in nature and cannot be equated with decrees/orders passed by Civil Courts which are binding on the parties and can be enforced and executed. It cannot be said that the reports of the said Commission are alternative to the hierarchical judicial system envisaged under the Constitution of India."
21. Karnataka High Court in Karnataka Antibiotics and Another Vs National Commission for SC and ST and others, ILR 2008 KAR 2205 held that the Commission is not empowered under Article 228 of the Constitution either to set aside a concluded inquiry or the order of penalty or the order of Appellate Authority. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under-
"12. Article 338 of Constitution of India specifies for constitution of National Commission for Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes. The Supreme Court in All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST employees' welfare association v. Union of India (Supra) held that 'all the procedural powers of civil court given to the National Commission for Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe by Article 338(8) of the Constitution of India are for the limited purpose of investigating any matter under Article 338(5)(a) or inquiring into any complaint, under 338(5)(b). The powers of a civil court of granting injunctions, temporary or permanent, do not inhere in the Commission nor can such a power be inferred or derived from a reading of Clause (8) of Article 338 of the Constitution. The Commission having not been specifically granted any power to issue interim injunctions, lacks the authority to issue an order of the type found in the letter dated 4.3.1993 directing the Bank to stop the promotion process pending further investigation and final verdict in the matter'.