High Court has power to transfer case from one court to another.

Markandey Katju, CJ.

This writ petition has been filed by the Service Bar Association which is an Association of lawyers practising before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act.

2. The prayer in this petition is a general prayer directing the respondents to withdraw all the cases pending in the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and to transfer them to this Court for decision by the High Court.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Advocate General.

4. The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal was constituted under Section 4(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 on 12.12.1988 and we are informed that as on date about 34,000 cases are pending there.

5. We are informed that presently there is no Presiding Officer in the Tribunal and the State Government has sent a proposal to the Central Government for abolition of the Tribunal and the matter is pending with the Central Government. The position is therefore that while legally the Tribunal continues to exist, but factually it is non functional as there is no Presiding Officer or Member to hear the cases nor is the State Government interested in continuing the Tribunal. The result is that the cases of persons who filed petitions before the Tribunal cannot be heard and decided, and this is causing great hardship and suffering to the petitioners.

6. Citizens in this country have a right to get justice. However because of the non functioning of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the cases of the petitioners in the Tribunal are not being heard and thus they are being deprived of justice. We are of the opinion that this is not fair to the petitioners as every one in this country has a right to go to court and ask for justice.

7. Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the High Court has the power of superintendence and this includes the power to transfer cases from one Court to another vide:

1. Mohamed Abdul Raoof and others vs. State of Hyderabad (A.I.R.(38) 1951 Hyderabad 50).

2. S.Srinivas Rao vs. High Court of Andhra Pradesh and others (AIR 1989 Andhra Pradesh 258).

3. Kanniammal and another vs. P. Narayanan and another (AIR 1989 Madras 350).

4. M/s. Ritz Hotels (Mysore) Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka and others (AIR 1985 Kant. 149).

5. Mohamed Baquar Hussain Qureshi vs. The State of Hyderabad (AIR (38) 1951 Hyd. 82).

6. Maharaj Kumar Gajbir Singh and another vs. Maharaja Satbir Singh and others (AIR 1968 Punjab and Haryana 301).

7. Wali Mahammad vs. Manik Chandra Raul (AIR 1957 Calcutta 221).

8. Lalita Rajya Lakshmi and another vs. State of Bihar and another (AIR 1957 Patna 198).

9. Pyda Venkatanarayana and another vs. Thota Ramaswamy and others (AIR 1955 Andhra 40).

8. In Rajeshwari vs. United India Company (AIR 1984 Madras 170), this Court has held that even in the absence of any provision having been made in the Motor Vehicles Act for transfer of a case from one Tribunal to another, the High Court under Article 227 has power to transfer a case from one Tribunal to another. The same view has been followed by another Honourable Judge of this Court in Kanniammal and another vs. P. Narayanan and another (AIR 1989 Madras 350) where reliance has also been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Gurjarat vs. Vakhatsinghji (AIR 1968 SC 1481).

9. No doubt, a learned single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Murugani Ramalingam vs. Kondapalli Gurumurthy Reddy (AIR 1955 AP 85) has held that the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to transfer cases from a court or Tribunal does not include the power to transfer a case to the High Court itself. The reasoning given by the learned single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court is that the power of the High Court to transfer a case to itself is contained in Article 228 exclusively and hence it cannot be said to be a power conferred by Article 227. We respectfully disagree with t