Writ Petition Maintenable Against Administrative Tribunal's Orders In Contempt Cases In Exceptional Cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that no appeal is maintainable against a decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal in a contempt case and that in exceptional cases, a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be filed before the High Court.

The Court was hearing a Special Leave Petition against a Judgment of the Allahabad High Court in a service matter holding that any Order or decision of the Administrative Tribunal under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is appealable to only the Supreme Court within a period of 60 days, and no Writ Petition is maintainable before the High Court under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution.

A two-Judge Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan held, "In view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997), since the administrative tribunal is a tribunal subordinate to the High Court in its territorial jurisdiction, the High Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On this ground alone, the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the High Court for considering the writ petition of the appellant herein in accordance with law."

Senior Advocate P. B. Suresh appeared for the Petitioners and Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave appeared for the Respondents.

Citing its Judgment in Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. and Ors. v. Chunilal Nanda and Ors. (2006), the Court said, "[A]n order holding that the respondents are not guilty of contempt was not an appealable order." In such circumstances, "the only remedy and that too in exceptional cases to a person aggrieved by the order of the tribunal was to challenge the same by way of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court."

Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 empowers the Tribunal to punish for the contempt of itself and provides that the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 shall have effect subject to the modification that any reference to High Court under the 1971 Act shall be construed as a reference to the Tribunal. "Further, the Tribunal shall have the same jurisdiction, powers and authority in respect of contempt of itself as a High Court has." the High Court noted.

While interpreting the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act and the Contempt of Courts Act, the High Court had said, "An order or decision of the Tribunal in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt would be appealable as a matter of right under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act, 1971, which provides that an appeal shall lie as a matter of right to the Bench of at least two Judges where the contempt order is passed by the Single Judge and it shall lie to the Supreme Court where the order is passed by the Bench."

"Since proceeding for contempt under Section 17 of the Act, 1985 is dealt with by the Bench of not less than two Members and the Order passed under Section 17 of the Act, 1985 would be appealable before the Supreme Court only, [t]herefore, any order or decision of the Tribunal under the Act, 1971 shall be appealable only to the Supreme Court within 60 days from the date of the order", the High Court said.

The case originated with the Petitioners approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench by invoking the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, which was disposed of by giving appointment to the applicants as regular Assistant Medical Officers with effect from the date on which they were initially appointed as Short Term Medical Officer. Claiming non-compliance, the Petitioners approached the Tribunal by filing a Contempt Petition which was disposed of by concluding that sufficient compliance has been made and that there was no wilful disobedience of the direction of the Tribunal. 

Aggrieved by the Tribunal's Order on the Contempt Petition, the Petitioners moved the Allahabad High Court through a Writ Petition claiming non-compliance of the Tribunal's Order. There, the State raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. To answer preliminary objection, the issue that fell for consideration before the High Court was whether a Writ petition was maintainable before the High Court against the Orders passed under the Contempt of Courts Act. The High Court concluded that the Writ Petition was not maintainable.

Cause Title: Brajendra Singh Chauhan & Ors. v. Giridhar Aramane & Anr. [SLP(C) 10302/2024]

Appearance: 

Petitioners: Senior Advocate P. B. Suresh; Advocates Parul Shukla, Shubhangi Pandey, Saday Mondol and Aman

Respondents: Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave, Advocates Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Jagdish Chandra Solanki, Shivika Mehra and Madhav Sinhal

Click here to read/download the Order