IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 08.02.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.2207 of 2010 A.Udaya Kumar ...Petitioner Vs. 1.The National Commission for SC/ST Represented by Director, 5th Floor, Loknayak Bhavan, New Delhi 110 003. 2.The National Commission for SC/ST, Represented by Assistant Director, State Office of Tamil Nadu, 2nd Floor, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai 6. 3.Micro Small Medium Enterprises D1, Formerly known as Small Industries Service Institute, By its Director, 65/1, GST Road, Guindy, Chennai 32. ...Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of mandamus, directing the first respondent to pass orders in File bearing No.9/22/1998 RET(CG) as sought for by the petitioner vide representation dated 2.09.2009 in accordance with law. For Petitioner : Mr.I.Kowser Nissar For Respondents : Mr.Damodaran O R D E R
Heard the arguments of Mr.I.Kowser Nissar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner has come forward to file the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the first respondent National Commission for SC/ST represented by its Director, to pass an order on the File No.9/22/1998 RET(CG) as sought for by the petitioner vide its representation dated 02.09.2009.
3. Before coming to this Court, the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition being W.P.No.3840 of 2001. This Court by a final order dated 28.02.2001 directed the Commission to consider his complaint dated 05.08.1998 within a time frame. Thereafter, the Commission had called for certain remarks from the petitioner’s employer, the third respondent and remarks were also sent on 01.03.2002. It is now stated that the matters were pending with the Commission. However, the petitioner by his latest representation dated 02.09.2009 stated that he had sent several representations towards his retrospective appointment and denial of promotion. Therefore, he sought for the intervention of the Commission in this regard.
4. When the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner was questioned about the maintainability of such a writ petition. Except by saying that the earlier writ petition was entertained, the learned counsel could not show under which specific provision, this Court can grant any direction for the Commission to entertain the service grievance projected in this writ petition. It is needless to state that the first respondent Commission is a creature of the constitution constituted under Article 338 of the Constitution.
5. Under Article 338, the Commission has power to regulate its own procedure and its duty was to investigate and monitor all matters relating to safeguards provided for the Scheduled Castes under this Constitution or under any other law for the time being in force or under any order of the Government and to evaluate the working of such safeguards. It has also power to inquire into specific complaints with respect to the deprivation of rights and safeguards of the Scheduled Castes. Apart from its specific powers, several other provisions have also been made. Under Article 338(8), the Commission has been entrusted with the power, while investigating the matter referred to in sub-clause (a) or Sub-clause (b) of Clause 5, have all the powers of a Civil Court while trying a suit.
6. The scope of the said power came to be considered by the Supreme Court in All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees’ Welfare Assn. v. Union of India reported in (1996) 6 SCC 606. In that, the Supreme Court held that while using the power of a Civil Court under Article 338(8) the Commission has not been granted any power to issue interim injunction. The power is only to investigate and enquire into those matters and that too for a limited purpose.
7. The same issue once again came up before a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Indian Institute of Science SC/ST Employees Welfare Association (Regd) Bangalore v. Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore and another reported in 2004 (5) Kar.L.J.352.. The Division Bench presided by R.V.Raveendran,J.(as he then was) after referring to the earlier judgment in All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees’ Welfare Assn’s case (cited supra), in paragraph 30 observed as follows:-
“30.On the other hand, learned counsel for the employees association relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees and others Welfare Association v. Union of India and others, wherein it is held that while the Commission has only power to investigate into the matter and re-enquire into the complaints; and for such purposes, it has the procedural powers of the Civil Court, but has no power to issue any adjudicatory orders.”
8. Therefore, the present attempt by the petitioner seeking for a direction from this Court to the Commission to pass an order on the basis of his representation is clearly not maintainable. In that view of the matter, the prayer made by the petitioner cannot be countenanced by this Court. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
08.02.2010
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
svki
To
1.The Director,
The National Commission for SC/ST
5th Floor, Loknayak Bhavan,
New Delhi 110 003.
2.The Assistant Director,
The National Commission for SC/ST,
State Office of Tamil Nadu,
2nd Floor, Shastri Bhavan,
Chennai 6.
3.Micro Small Medium Enterprises D1,
Formerly known as Small Industries
Service Institute,
By its Director,
65/1, GST Road, Guindy,
Chennai 32.
K.CHANDRU,J.
svki
W.P.No.2207 of 2010
08.02.2010