Can Tribunal Decide Jurisdictional Issue?
UNION OF INDIA V. MYSORE PAPER MILLS LTD. & ORS.
Time and again, various cases came before tribunals, where claim petitions were filed, for refund of excess charges being charged by various Government authorities. Tribunals across the country have been getting cases pertaining to refund of excess charges. However, again and again the question pertaining to the jurisdiction of the tribunals to entertain these petitions came not only before these tribunals but also before various High Courts as well.
Table of Contents
- Jurisdiction of Tribunals
- Union of India v. Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. & Ors.
- Facts of Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. – Filed in Tribunal Court
- Appeal in Karnataka High Court
- V. Subba Rao v. T. Koteswara Rao
- Balgopal v. Mohan Singh
- Associated Cement Companies Ltd Case
- Bal Gopal’s case
Jurisdiction of Tribunals
Various High Courts have different opinions pertaining to the jurisdiction of these tribunals to entertain claim petitions, wherein some High Courts have held that tribunals do not have the power to entertain these petitions as such power only vests with High Courts and not to courts and tribunals subordinate to it.
While other High Court held the affirmative and observed that powers of the tribunals in entertaining these claim petitions are similar to that of High Court and therefore, tribunals have the jurisdiction to entertain these claim petitions.
However, Karnataka High Court in the case of Union of India v. Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. & Ors. clarified this position and held that tribunals are indeed entitled to entertain the claim petitions as they do not oust their jurisdiction under Section 115 Civil Procedure Code.
Facts of Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. – Filed in Tribunal Court
The facts of the case are that Mysore paper mills ltd. paid excess fare charges and therefore, filed claim petition before the railways tribunal for the refund of the same. The main issue raised by the Union of India was that the tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to entertain these petitions. However, the tribunal held otherwise, thereby holding that the petition is maintainable since the tribunal have jurisdiction to entertain these petitions.
Appeal in Karnataka High Court
Union of India thereafter filed an appeal before Karnataka High Court against the order of the tribunal, challenging the jurisdiction of the tribunals to entertain claim petitions.
Thus, the main question before Karnataka High Court was whether tribunals and courts subordinate to High Court have jurisdiction to entertain claim petitions or not under Section 115 Civil Procedure Code?
Karnataka High Court observed that before these tribunals were formed, claims petition was entertained by civil courts. Thereafter, tribunals were formed to reduce the burden of civil courts, thereby ensuring an alternate institutional mechanism apart from the civil courts. With that, civil courts are also relieved from the duty to entertain the petition, thereby providing speedy justice to the general public.
High Court further went on to add that the main difference between civil courts and tribunals is that tribunals are free to choose their own procedure of functioning, thereby making their functioning flexible whereas civil courts have definite procedure as specified by the civil procedure code.
Furthermore, High Court referred the case of T. V. Subba Rao v. T. Koteswara Rao, wherein court gave emphasis on the phrase ‘any court subordinate to such High Court’, and said that this phrase does not refer to a certain category of court, but to all the categories of courts which can be considered as subordinate or inferior to the High Court. Every court or tribunal that perform its functions within the territorial limits of a particular state, the High Court has jurisdiction over all civil as well as criminal matters of that state and thus is subordinate to the High court of that State.
Further, in the case of Balgopal v. Mohan Singh, it was held that a tribunal, which was formed under the Displaced Persons Act, 1951, was subordinate to the High Court under section 115 of CPC. It was also held that the orders passed by the tribunal can be revised by the High court. Though this case mainly focuses on the Displaced Persons Act, but it also gave its reasoning on the issue that orders passed by tribunals should be revised by the High Court or not.
Also, observing the difference between tribunals and courts, High Court cited the decision in Associated Cement Companies Ltd Case, wherein the reasoning given by the court was that the word ‘court’ and tribunal are different, and they are synonyms. Court is used when we talk about the Judicial Powers of the state and punish the wrongs in the administration of justice, and it denotes the Ordinary courts of Civil Judicature.
Similarly, Karnataka High Court referred the Bal Gopal’s case, wherein it was held that the orders of the tribunal where there is no appeal are subject to revision under section 115 CPC. But, under section 25 of the act, it is said that all proceedings of the tribunal should be governed by the provisions of CPC.
Therefore, Karnataka High Court clarified the position pertaining to tribunals jurisdiction and held that tribunals have the jurisdiction to entertain the claim petitions. It further clarified that High Court have the jurisdiction under Section 227 to hear petition against the order of the tribunals, as an order passed by the tribunal oust the revision jurisdiction.