Point of Law: Jurisdiction of courts except Supreme Court - It is not open for litigant to directly approach the High Court even in cases where vires of statutory legislation is challenged, by overlooking jurisdiction of Tribunal concerned, takes matter beyond the pale of controversy - Under scheme of Act, 1985, if a matter is amenable to jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunal, then only said Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction as a Court of first instance.

ORDER :

N.J. Jamadar, J.

1. The petitioner, who was the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, at the relevant time, has instituted this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a two-fold relief. One, direct respondent no.2 – CBI to also inquire/investigate into the criminal conspiracy and malicious attempts to thwart the preliminary inquiry directed by this Court and the resultant investigations in FIR No.RC 2232021 A003, dated 21st April, 2021, registered against the then Home Minister, Government of Maharashtra and unknown others. Two, quash and set aside orders dated 1st April, 2021 and 20th April, 2021 issued by respondent no.1 – State, directing respondent no.3, the Director General of Police, Maharashtra to conduct preliminary inquiry against the petitioner and submit report.

2. When the petition was listed before this Court on 4th May, 2021, a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of respondent no.1 – State to the tenability of the petition as the subject matter and principal reliefs in the petition were in the realm of exclusive jurisdiction vested with the Central Administrative Tribunal.

3. In the backdrop of the preliminary objection, we are called upon to consider the maintainability of the petition before this Court.

4. To begin with, it may be apposite to briefly note the factual backdrop:

(a) The petitioner is an IPS Officer of the batch of 1988. On 29th February, 2020, the petitioner was appointed as the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai. By an order dated 17th March, 2021, the petitioner was transferred as Commandant General of Home Guard, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, purportedly on account of the “administrative exigency”. However, on 18th March, 2021, it was widely reported in the media that the then Home Minister made statements to the effect that there were lapses on the part of the petitioner in handling of an incident of an explosive laden vehicle being found near the residence of an industrialist and the transfer of the petitioner was not on administrative grounds. Taking umbrage to the media reports, the petitioner addressed a letter to the Hon’ble Chief Minister on 20th March, 2021. In the said letter the petitioner adverted to the alleged malpractices and misdeeds of the then Home Minister. Initially, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court, being Writ Petition (C) No.385 of 2021, seeking, inter alia, CBI probe into allegations against the then Home Minister. However, the petitioner withdrew the said writ petition and, availing the liberty granted by the Supreme Court, filed PIL No.6/2021 before this Court. By an order dated 5th April, 2021 in Criminal Writ Petition No.1541/2021 and the connected matters, this Court directed CBI to initiate a preliminary inquiry into the complaint of Dr. Patil, which had the letter of the petitioner addressed to the Hon’ble Chief Minister as an annexure, in accordance with law. It was further directed that, post completion of preliminary inquiry, the Director, CBI, was at liberty to decide on the future course of action, also in accordance with law.

(b) In the backdrop of aforesaid prelude, the petitioner alleges that respondent no.1 – State initiated retaliatory and mala fide action against the petitioner. It is averred that after Criminal Writ Petition No.1541 of 2021 was heard on 31st March, 2021 and order reserved, respondent no.1 issued impugned administrative order dated 1st April, 2021 entrusting preliminary inquiry to respondent no.3 - Mr. Sanjay Pande, the then Director General, Maharashtra State Security Corporation, Mumbai, in the matter of alleged failure on the part of the petitioner to control and supervise his subordinates, negligence and carelessness in not submitting report to the Government, breach of All India Service (Conduct) Rule, 1968 and failure to provide factual, complete and accurate information to superiors during the Budget Session of State Legislature in the aforesaid case of explosives scare.

(c) On 20th Apri