M.P. HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 520 · Decided: 17-09-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
M.P. HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 17, 2004 
[R.C. LAHOTI, CJ.I. AND C.K. THAKKER, J.] 
M.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000 : Section 74(1). 
Abolition of State Administrative Tribunal-Constitutionality of-Held 
: Not ultra vires Art. 323-A or any other part of the Constitution-Further, 
L. Chandra Kumar's case did not lay down that once a Tribunal is 
constituted, created or established, there was no power either in the Central 
Government or the State Governments to abolish it-Constitution of India, 
1950, Art, 323-A-Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, S. 4(2). 
Abolition of State Administrative Tribunal-Validity of-Held : The 
essential legislative function is to determine the legislative policy and its 
formulation as a binding rule of conduct-Once such an essential legislative 
function is preformed, the Legislative can delegate to the Executive authority 
necessary ancillary and subordinate powers for carrying out the policy and 
purposes of the Act-Therefore, authorizing the State Government to take a 
decision to abolish the State Administrative Tribunal does not suffer from 
excessive delegation-Hence, High Court rightly held that S. 74(1) was not 
in the nature of "delegated legislation" but was conditional legislation. 
Abolition of State Administrative Tribunal-Validity of-Held: In view 
F 
of the subsequent development of law in L. Chandra Kumar's case, the State 
Government's opinion that the State Administrative Tribunal would be 'one 
more tier' in the administration of justice and, therefore, it should not be 
continued is not arbitrary, irrational or unreasonable-Moreover, the State 
Government had also taken into consideration the decision in L. Chandra 
G 
H 
Kumar's case abolishing the Tribunal-Hence, such a decision is not illegal, 
invalid or improper. 
Abolition of State Administrative Tribunal-Alleged interference by 
State Government in the judicial functioning of the State Administrative .. 
Tribunal being violative of the basic structure of the Constitution-Correctness 
of-Held: There was no interference with a "judicial order" passed by a 
520 
-----
... 
M.P. HIGH COURT BAR ASSON. v. U.O.I. 
521 
competent court on a tribunal but a "policy decision" to abolish the State 
A 
Administrative Tribunal-Hence, such abolition valid. 
Abolition of State Administrative Tribunal-Allegation that such a 
decision was mala fide as it was taken because the Tribunal had passed 
orders against the State Government and granted relief in transfer matters-
Correctness of-Held: There is no concrete material to substantiate the said 
allegation-Hence, decision to abolish the State Administrative Tribunal not 
mala fide. 
Abolition of State Administrative Tribunal-Validity of-Held : If a 
decision is illegal, unconstitutional or ultra vires, it has to be set aside 
irrespective of the laudable object behind it-But it cannot be set aside 
merely on the ground that such a decision was not advisable in the facts of 
the case or that another decision could have been taken-While exercising 
its power of judicial review, Supreme Court cannot substitute its own decision 
for the decision of the Government. 
Section 74(1) & (4)-Jnterrelation between-Held : S. 74(1) not 
subservient to S. 74(4)-0nce the provisions of S. 74(1) are attracted and 
invoked, the provisions of S. 74(4) had no application. 
B 
c 
D 
The state of M.P. issued a notification under Section 74(1) of the 
E 
M.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000 by which the M.P. State Administrative 
Tribunal was abolished. 
Being aggrieved by the said decision the appellant-Association filed 
a writ petition before the High Court for a declaration that Section 74 
of the Act was unconstitutional and ultrq vires and for quashing and 
F 
setting aside of the said notification. 
The High Court held that Section 74(1) of the Act was intra vires 
the.Constitution and that the State Government ofM.P. was empowered 
under Section 74(1) of the Act to abo.lish the State Administrative 
Tribunal. The High Court further held that no directions from the 
Central Government were necessary to take the decision to abolish the 
Tribunal. Hence the appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the State 
Administrative Tribunal had been established under the Administrative 
G 
H 
A 
B 
522 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
Tribunals Act, 1985 enacted by Parliament in exercise of power under 
Article 323-A of the Cons

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.