1. Challenge to a High Court interim order passed in a writ petition while a transfer order dispute was pending before the Central Administrative Tribunal. (Para 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 695
1999(10) Supreme 471
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.B. Pattanaik & U.C. Banerjee, JJ.
State of U.P. & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Sunanda Prasad & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3675 of 1999
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8628 of 1999)
Decided on 13-7-1999
Important Points
The High Court exceeds its jurisdiction by entertaining a writ petition when the subject matter is already pending before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The appropriate remedy for any violation of the Tribunal's interim directions is to file a contempt application before the Tribunal.
Subject
Writ - Jurisdiction
Act Referred
Headnote
Constitution of India-Article 226 -Writ Petition-Jurisdiction of High Court to entertain-Writ petition against interim order of status quo passed by Central Administrative Tribunal-Application before Tribunal still pending-High Court entertaining writ petition and passing interim order annulling order of Tribunal-Held : High Court exceeded its jurisdiction-If appellant authority had violated interim directions of Tribunal paper remedy was to file Contempt of Court petition-Order of High Court quashed-Writ Petition dismissed. (Paras 4 & 5)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the High Court could exercise jurisdiction to annul a Tribunal's interim order while the main grievance remained pending before the Tribunal. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. High Court exceeded jurisdiction by entertaining a writ petition when the subject matter was pending before the Tribunal and a status quo order was in effect. (Para 3 , 4 )
4. High Courts should not entertain writ petitions when the legality of the subject matter is already under consideration in pending proceedings before the Central Administrative Tribunal. (Para 4 )
5. Impugned High Court order quashed and writ petition dismissed; Tribunal directed to dispose of the matter on the scheduled date. (Para 5 , 6 )
6. Can a High Court entertain a writ petition when the subject matter is pending before the Central Administrative Tribunal?
No, the High Court exceeds its jurisdiction by entertaining a writ application when the legality of the matter is already the subject-matter of a pending proceeding before the Central Administrative Tribunal. (Para 4 )
7. What is the remedy for the violation of an interim direction issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal?
The appropriate remedy for the violation of an interim direction of the Tribunal is to file an application for contempt before the Tribunal. (Para 4 )
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Though ordinarily this Court does not interfere with an interim order passed by the High Court, but in the case in hand the High Court having entertained a writ petition while the grievance of the respondents is still pending before the Central Administrative Tribunal and having passed an interim order annulling the order of the Tribunal, we think it appropriate to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court.
4. We have no doubt in our mind that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in entertaining a writ application when the legality of the order of transfer is a subject-matter of a pending proceeding before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal has passed an order of status quo. If the appellant authority has violated any interim direction of the Tribunal, the appropriate remedy is to file an application for contempt and we are told that such an application has been filed, which is pending before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also fixed up the hearing of the matter on 16.7.1999.
5. In the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order of the High Court stands quashed. The writ petition is also dismissed. The Tribunal is requested to dispose of the matter on the date on which the matter has already been fixed for hearing.
6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(C.R.) Order accordingly.
***********
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
State of U.P. & Ors. v. Sunanda Prasad & Anr., 1999(10) Supreme 471
00022
00023
