Writ not maintainable before a High Court against an order of an Administrative Tribunal

Supreme Court upholds Karnataka High Court's decision on service dispute; directs matter to Tribunal. High Court's writ jurisdiction in service matters limited by principle of alternate remedy, reinforcing the role of Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal as first instance court.

In the judgment "Leelavathi N. v. State of Karnataka," the Supreme Court of India addresses the question of whether a writ is maintainable before a High Court against an order of an Administrative Tribunal. The judgment provides a detailed analysis based on precedents and the principles governing the jurisdiction of High Courts and Tribunals.

1. Tribunal as the Court of First Instance: The judgment emphasizes that, as per the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, Tribunals are the courts of first instance in service matters. This principle was reinforced by the Constitution Bench in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, which held that litigants cannot directly approach High Courts bypassing the jurisdiction of Tribunals in service disputes unless exceptional circumstances exist.

2. High Court’s Writ Jurisdiction: Article 226 of the Constitution grants High Courts the power to issue writs, but this power is subject to self-imposed limitations. The judgment clarifies that the High Court's writ jurisdiction should not be invoked when an effective alternative remedy, like the one provided by Tribunals, is available. This is in line with the rule of alternate remedy, which discourages bypassing statutory forums designed for specific disputes.

3. Exceptional Circumstances: The judgment outlines exceptions where the High Court may entertain a writ petition despite the availability of an alternative remedy. These include:

  - Violation of fundamental rights.

  - Instances where the principles of natural justice have been violated.

  - When the order under challenge is wholly without jurisdiction.

  - When the vires of a legislation is questioned.

  However, the judgment notes that the facts of the present case do not fall into any of these exceptions.

4. Previous Precedents: The judgment refers to several past decisions, including T.K. Rangarajan v. Government of T.N., where extraordinary circumstances justified the High Court's intervention. However, it distinguishes the present case from such precedents, stating that the issues at hand do not warrant bypassing the Tribunal's jurisdiction. At best, the said judgment can be termed as an order passed under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and as such, it is not binding.

5. Conclusion and Ruling: The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court, which had set aside the Single Judge’s order that entertained the writ petitions. The Division Bench had rightly relegated the matter to the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) for adjudication. The Supreme Court concluded that the KSAT is fully equipped to handle the service matters in question and that the High Court's intervention was not justified in this instance.

Bottom Line:

Tribunal as the Court of first instance in service matters - High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 must adhere to principles of alternate remedy unless exceptional circumstances apply.

In summary, the judgment clarifies that a writ is generally not maintainable before a High Court against an order of an Administrative Tribunal unless there are exceptional circumstances. The Tribunals are intended to be the first point of adjudication in service matters, ensuring specialized and expedited resolution of disputes.

Leelavathi N. v. State of Karnataka, (SC) : Law Finder Doc id # 2795524