2012 Supreme(SC) 738

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.S. CHAUHAN & FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. -Appellants
VERSUS
GUJARAT REVENUE TRIBUNAL BAR ASSOCIATION & ANR. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No.7208 of 2012
Decided On : 16-10-2012.

Point in Issue :
Whether appointment of the Secretary to the Government of Gujarat as President of Revenue Tribunal is legal.

Headnote:(a) Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act, 1957 — Sections 3(2)(9), 9(4), 13(1), 15 to 17 and 20 — Gujarat Revenue Tribunal Rules, 1982 — Rules 3, 3(1)(iii)(a), 3(1)(iii)(g) & 3(iii) — Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 217(2)(a), 227 & 233 to 236 — Appointment of the Secretary to the Government of Gujarat as President of the Revenue Tribunal by State Government — Challenge to appointment and also constitutional validity of Rule conferring power upon State Government for such appointment — High Court while striking down the Rule held appointment also invalid — Appeal against — Scope of — High Court in it’s judgment held that Tribunal was in the strict sense or Court and the president who presides over such Tribunal could only be judicial officer for which concurrence of High Court is necessary High Court have given decision taking into consideration various statutes dealing with not only the revenue matters but also covering other subjects which makes it crystal clear that the Tribunal does not deal only with revenue matters provided under Schedule I but also have been conferred appellate/Reasonal power under the various other statutes — Most of these statutes provide that Tribunal while dealing with appeals, references and revisions would act giving strict adherence to the procedure prescribed in CPC for deciding matter as followed by Civil Court and certain powers have also been conferred upon it as provided in CrPC and IPC — Section 13(1) also provides that in exercising the jurisdiction conferred upon the Tribunal, the Tribunal shall have all the powers of a civil Court and shall be deemed to be civil Court for the purposes of Sections 195, 480 and 482 of CrPC and that it’s proceedings shall be deemed to be judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 193, 219 and 228 of IPC — Court thus concurring with the finding of the High Court held appointment to the Government of Gujarat as President of Tribunal is invalid and could not be made without proper consultation/concurrence of the High Court.

       Held :

       The High Court then, vide impugned judgment and order dated 14.9.2009 held that the Tribunal was in the strict sense, a “Court” and that the President, who presides over such Tribunal could therefore, only be a “Judicial Officer”, a District Judge etc., for which, concurrence of the High Court is necessary under Article 234 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the present appeal. [Para 2C]

       Section 13(1) of the Act, 1957, provides that in exercising the jurisdiction conferred upon the Tribunal, the Tribunal shall have all the powers of a civil Court as enumerated therein and shall be deemed to be a civil Court for the purposes of Sections 195, 480 and 482 of the Cr.P.C., and that its proceedings shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings, within the meaning of Secs. 193, 219 and 228 of the IPC. [Para 26]

       The aforesaid observations made by the High Court, taking into consideration various statutes dealing with not only the revenue matters, but also covering other subjects, make it crystal clear that the Tribunal does not deal only with revenue matters provided under the Schedule I, but has also been conferred appellate/revisional powers under various other statutes. Most of those statutes provide that the Tribunal, while dealing with appeals, references, revisions, would act giving strict adherence to the procedure prescribed in the CPC, for deciding a matter as followed by the Civil Court and certain powers have also been conferred upon it, as provided in the Cr.P.C. and IPC. Thus, we do not have any hesitation in concurring with the finding recorded by the High Court that the Tribunal is akin to a Court and performs similar functions.

        [Para 27]

       During the course of arguments before the High Court, learned Additional Advocate General had conceded that the judgments and orders passed by the Tribunal can be challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution. Thus, it has been conceded before the High Court that the High Court has supervisory control over the Tribunal, to the extent that it can revise and correct the judgments and orders passed by it. In such a fact-situation, the consultation/concurrence of the High Court, in the matter of making the appointment of the President of the Tribunal is required. [Para 27]

       Thus, it is evident from the above that the procedure to be observed under Article 234 of the Constitution goes to the extent of the true meaning of consultative process and not an empty formality. [Para 29]

       Court does not see any cogent reason to take a view contrary to the view taken by the High Court. [Para 30]

       (b) Words & Phrases — Court — Expression of — Indicated.

       Held :

       The expression ‘Court’ is understood in the context of its normally accepted connotation, as an adjudicating body, which performs judicial functions of rendering definitive judgments having a sense of finality and authoritativeness to bind the parties litigating before it. Secondly, it should be in the course of exercise of the sovereign judicial power transferred to it by the State. Any Tribunal or authority therefore, that possesses these attributes, may be categorized as a Court. [Para 9]

       Law Laid Down :

       Revenue Tribunal is akin to a Court and performs similar functions