NCLAT: Consideration of Debt Restructuring by Lenders Doesn’t Bar Member from Initiating Proceedings  ||  Delhi High Court: In Matters of Medical Evaluation, Courts Should Exercise Restraint  ||  Delhi HC: Any Person in India Has Right to Legally Import Goods from Abroad and Sell the Same  ||  Delhi HC: Waiver to Section 12(5) of Arbitration Act to be Given Once Tribunal is Constituted  ||  Supreme Court Has Asked States to Regularise Existing Court Managers  ||  SC: Union & States to Create Special POSCO Courts on Top Priority  ||  SC Upholds Authority of CERC to Award Compensation for Delays  ||  SC: Arbitral Tribunal Has Discretion to Include in Sum Awarded, Interest at Rate as it Deems Reasonab  ||  SC: Cannot Use Article 142 to Frame Guidelines on Judicial Recusal  ||  SC: Satisfaction Recorder in One EP Won’t Affect Subsequent EPs for Future Breaches    

H.S. Yadav Vs. Shakuntala Devi Parakh - (Supreme Court) (15 Oct 2019)

Tribunal’s order cannot be directly challenged in the Supreme Court

MANU/SC/1403/2019

Tenancy

In facts of present matter, the State of Chhattisgarh enacted the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011. Under this Act, in the hierarchy of adjudicating authorities, there is a Rent Controller and above that, a Rent Control Tribunal. In terms of Section 7 of the Act, the State can appoint one or more officers not below the rank of Deputy Collector, as Rent Controller with territorial jurisdiction to be specified by the Collector. The Rent Control Tribunal is constituted under Section 6 of the Act. This Tribunal has appellate and supervisory jurisdiction.

A bare perusal of Section 13 of the Act shows that, from any order of the Rent Controller an appeal lies to the Rent Control Tribunal and in terms of Section 13(2) of the Act, an appeal lies as a matter of right to the Supreme Court. It is not disputed that, the State has the power to constitute the Tribunal. The only issue is whether in terms of Section 13(2) of the Act, the State Legislature could provide an appeal as a matter of right from the order of the Tribunal to the Supreme Court.

Article 246 of the Constitution of India, 1950 specifically provides that, Parliament has exclusive powers to make laws in respect of matters enumerated in List I (Union List) of the Seventh Schedule. Likewise, the State has exclusive powers to make laws in respect of matters falling in List II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule. As far as the Concurrent List, i.e. List III is concerned, both the Union and the State have the power to enact laws but if the field is occupied by any law enacted by Parliament then, the State cannot legislate on the same issue.

Section 13(2) of the Act, in so far as it provides an appeal directly to the Supreme Court, is totally illegal, ultra vires the Constitution and beyond the scope of the powers of the State Legislature. Section 13(2) of the Act is accordingly struck down. In L. Chandrakumar v. Union of India, this Court clearly held that, tribunals constituted under Articles 323A and 323B of the Constitution are subject to the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts. In view of the law laid down in L. Chandrakumar's case, the High Court can exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution against the orders of the Rent Control Tribunal.

An appeal under Section 13(2) of the Act directly to the Supreme Court is not maintainable. However, it is open to the Appellant to approach the High Court for redressal of his grievance under Article 227 of the Constitution. Appeal dismissed.

Tags : DIRECT APPEAL   SUPREME COURT   MAINTAINABILITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved