Delhi High Court
Central Mine Planning & Design ... vs Vijay Kumar Choudhary And Anr. on 20 March, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.4217/2003
% 20th March, 2017
CENTRAL MINE PLANNING & DESIGN INSTITUTE LTD. AND
ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: None.
versus
VIJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India is filed impugning the order dated 28.1.2003 passed by the
Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes whereby there
are directions with respect to promotion, handing over of file to CBI
and withdrawing of a memo issued to Dr. B.C. Ruhidas.
2. I may note that petitioners in para 10 of the Grounds of
the writ petition have stated that signature on behalf of the petitioner
no. 1/company was obtained by coercion and force. I accept this stand
of the petitioners.
3. The issue in the present case is not res integra and decided
by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of All India Indian
Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees' Welfare Association and Others
Vs. Union of India and Others, (1996) 6 SCC 606, wherein in paras 10
and 11 it has been held that the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
Commission is not a Court of law which can pass directions and
injunctions and these paragraphs 10 and 11 read as under:-
"10. Interestingly, here, in clause (8) of Article 138, the words used are "the
Commission shall... have all the powers of the civil court trying a suit." But
the words "all the powers of a civil court" have to be exercised "while
investigating any matter referred to in sub-clause (a) or inquiring into any
complaint referred to in sub-clause (b) of clause 5". All the procedural
powers of a Civil Court are given to the Commission for the purpose of
investigating and inquiring into these matters and that too for that limited
purpose only. The powers of a civil court of granting injunctions, temporary
or permanent, do not inhere in the Commission nor can such a power be
inferred or derived from a reading of clause (8) of Article 338 of the
Constitution.
11. The Commission having not been specifically granted any power to
issue interim injunctions, lacks the authority to issue an order of the type
found in the letter dated March 4, 1993. The order itself being bad for want
of jurisdiction, all other questions and considerations raised in the appeal are
redundant. The High Court was justified in taking the view it did. The
appeal is dismissed. No costs."
4. In view of the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in
the case of All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees'
Welfare Association (supra), this writ petition is allowed and the
impugned order dated 28.1.2003 is set aside, leaving the parties to bear
their own costs.
MARCH 20, 2017/ AK VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
