The main legal point established in the judgment is that the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes exceeded its jurisdiction and acted as an adjudicatory authority, which was beyond its powers. The Commission misunderstood its role under Article 338A of the Constitution of India and acted as an alternative dispute redressal forum, contrary to its intended function.

JUDGMENT

Kalyan Rai Surana, J. - Heard Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. A.R. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Sarma, learned CGC appearing for respondent no.1 and Mr. T. Pertin, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner which is a Government of India undertaking has assailed the legality of the minutes and direction of the Assam Commission for Scheduled Tribes (respondent no.1), sitting held on 27.09.2019 regarding payment of full compensation against submergence of 1225 hectares due to construction of lower Subansiri Hydro Electric Project at Gerakamukh along Assam- Arunachal Pradesh Boarder and to submit the compliance report.

3. At the outset, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that some necessary facts has been stated in this writ petition, but the petitioner has only challenged the power and jurisdiction of the respondent no. 1 Commission to issue directions as contained in the minutes dated 27.09.2019. It is submitted that on various factual aspects, separate writ petitions have been filed. Accordingly, it is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that he would only be arguing on power and jurisdiction of the respondent no.1 Commission in light of the provisions of Article 338A of the Constitution of India. In this regard, it is further submitted that the petitioner had apprised the respondent no.1 Commission that the subject matter of dispute for which the respondent no. 2 had approached the Commission in the representative capacity was dealt with by this Court in WA No. 7(AP)/2014 and the matter is presently pending before the Supreme Court of India vide SLP (C) No. 6856/2020. It is also submitted that in course of determination of compensation, various reports and orders passed have come to the notice of the petitioners, which have been challenged by filing a separate writ petition.

4. While the learned counsel for the respondent had expresses no objection for hearing the matter only with regard to power and jurisdiction of commission as contained in minutes dated 27.09.2019. However, it is submitted that this writ petition is vitiated by suppression of material facts.

5. The short submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent no. 1, Commission is required to function in terms of Article 338A of the Constitution of India and the duty of the Commission is contained in Clause-5 of Article 338A of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that upon investigation of any matter relating to the safeguards provided for the Scheduled Tribes under the Constitution of India or any other law for the time being in force, the Commission has powers to make in its report recommendations as to the measures that should be taken by the Union of India or by any State for effective implementation of those safeguards and other measures for the protection, welfare and socially, economically development of the Scheduled Tribes. It is submitted that in the present case in hand, not only the respondent no. 1 Commission acted as a Court to determine that under which Act, land acquisition compensation should be computed, but also acted as an enforcing agency for payment of the awarded sum. It is submitted that the directions issued by the respondent no. 1 Commission is in the nature of mandamus containing a direction to pay, thereafter to report compliance and also the consequences of failure was also provided in the order. It is submitted that the power and jurisdiction of the National Commission of Scheduled Tribes and its limitations have been well settled by the Supreme Court of India in the ratio laid down in the case of All India Indian Overseas Bank SC & ST Employees Welfare Association and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 606. It is submitted that by following the said ratio, several cases have been d