R. C. Lahoti, J. - (1.) Administrative Tribunals set up under the provisions of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, do they or do they not have power to punish for their contempt Whether after the decision of this Court in L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261, Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter, the Act for short) does not survive and has been rendered unconstitutional or otiose These questions of far-reaching implications to the administration of justice through Tribunals arise for consideration in these appeals.
(2.) A cursory view of factual backdrop. An application (Contempt Application No. 562/1996 in O.A. No. 35574/1991) invoking the contempt jurisdiction of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act and seeking initiation of proceedings against the Principal Secretary, Irrigation and CAD Department was filed complaining of wilful disobedience by the latter of an order passed by the Tribunal in favour of the applicant. The Tribunal initiated the proceedings. The State of A. P. and the Principal Secretary filed a writ petition (CWP No. 34841/1997) in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh laying challenge to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to take cognizance of the contempt case. In another matter an application (Contempt Case No. 1054/1998) invoking contempt jurisdiction of the High Court, without approaching the Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act, and complaining of wilful disobedience of an order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal was filed before the High Court. In both the matters, question arose whether such proceedings were appropriately maintainable before the High Court or the Administrative Tribunal. The issue has been disposed of by a Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court holding as under :- "(1) that in view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India, (supra), Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, no more survives; (2) that consequently, the Administrative Tribunals set-up under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 cannot exercise the contempt jurisdiction under Section 17 of the said Act, as the same had become non est under law; (3) the contempt proceedings in Contempt Application No. 562 of 1996 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal are set aside as being devoid of jurisdiction. But, this will not prelude the respondents 1 to 6 in Writ Petition No. 34841 of 1997 from approaching this Court for punishing the contempt of A. P. Administrative Tribunal relating to the decision rendered in O. A. No. 35574 of 1991 by following the procedure as applicable to the contempt of subordinate Courts provided under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the rules made thereunder by the Andhra Pradesh High Court; and (4) that similarly, the petitioner in CC No. 1054 of 1998 has to approach this Court only by following the procedure as applicable to the contempt of subordinate Courts provided under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the rules made thereunder by the Andhra Pradesh High Court and not directly."
(3.) Accordingly, the High Court has directed the contempt application pending before it to be dealt with by following the procedure applicable to contempt of subordinate Courts and the contempt application filed in the Tribunal has been directed to be dismissed as one before forum without jurisdiction with liberty to the applicant to initiate the proceedings afresh by following the procedure as stated by the High Court. These appeals have been filed feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court taking the view as aforesaid.;