NDLI: Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association Vs. Union of India & Others

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Art. 226 – Odisha Administrative Tribunal-OAT
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Constitution of India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9 Referred Case 10 Referred Case 11 Referred Case 12 Referred Case 13 Referred Case 14 Referred Case 15 Referred Case 16 Referred Case 17 Referred Case 18 Referred Case 19 Referred Case 20 Referred Case 21 Referred Case 22 Referred Case 23 Referred Case 24 Referred Case 25 Referred Case 26 Referred Case 27
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	Constitution of India: Art. 226 – Odisha Administrative Tribunal-OAT – Abolition of, by Notification No. GSR 552(E) dt. 2 August 2019 – Constitutional Validity of the Notification – Held: Abolition of OAT is constitutionally valid – Challenge to the constitutional validity of the impugned notification dated 2 August 2019 by which the OAT was abolished is rejected - Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 – s. 4(2) – General Clauses Act, 1897 – s. 21. Article 226 – Odisha Administrative Tribunal-OAT – Abolition of – Writ petition before the Orissa High Court alleging violation of constitutional rights by abolition of OAT – Maintainability of – Held: Writ petitioners entitled to invoke jurisdiction of the High Court u/ Art. 226. Arts. 323A and 323B – Administrative Tribunal – Establishment of State Administrative Tribunals-SAT by the Union Government, if mandatory u/Art. 323-A - Held: Word ‘may’ in Art. 323-A is not imparted with the character of the word ‘shall’ – Art. 323-A does not preclude the Union Government from abolishing SATs – Art. 323-A is a directory, enabling provision which confers the Union Government with the discretion to establish an administrative tribunal – Art. 323- A does not act as a bar to the Union Government abolishing an administrative tribunal once it is created – Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Art. 14 – Notification dated 2.8. 2019 by which Odisha Administrative Tribunal-OAT was abolished – If arbitrary and thus, violative of Art. 14 – Held : Notification dated 2.08.2019 by which the OAT was abolished is not violative of Art. 14 – State Government did not consider any irrelevant or extraneous factors while arriving at the decision to request the Union Government to abolish the OAT – Decision to abolish the OAT is itself not absurd or so unreasonable that no reasonable person would have taken it – Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Art. 14 – Abolition of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal-OAT, if violative of the fundamental right of access to justice – Held : Abolition of the OAT not violative of the fundamental right of access to justice – Orissa High Court will hear cases which were pending before the OAT prior to its abolition – Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.Art. 14 – Abolition of Odisha Administrative Tribunal-OAT – Plea that Union and State Governments violated the principle of natural justice by failing to provide the OAT Bar Association and litigants before the OAT with an opportunity to be heard before abolishing the OAT – Held: Principles of natural justice not violated – Class of people who were affected by the decision to abolish the OAT did not have a right to be heard – Public at large (or some sections of it) did not have a right to be heard before the policy decision was taken – Principles of natural justice – Administrative Tribunals Act,1985. Art. 77 – Notification dated 2.08.2019 abolishing OAT – Not expressed in the name of the President of India – Validity of – Held: Notification dated 2.08.2019 is valid though it is not expressed in the name of the President of India – Non-compliance with Art.77 does not invalidate a notification or render it unconstitutional – Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985:Establishment of Odisha Administrative Tribunal-OAT – Union Government if rendered functus officio after establishing the OAT – Held: Union Government did not become functus officio after establishing the OAT – Doctrine of functus officio cannot ordinarily be applied in cases where the government is formulating and implementing a policy.Establishment of Odisha Administrative Tribunal-OAT – Plea that State Government took advantage of its own wrong by ceasing to fill the vacancies in the OAT – Held: State Government did not take advantage of its own wrong – It stopped filling the vacancies of the OAT only after deciding to abolish it – It did not rely on the vacancies (and the consequent increase in pendency) created by its inaction to abolish the OAT. Odisha Administrative Tribunal-OAT – Judicial impact assessment – Conduct of before abolishing the OAT - Failure by the Union Government, if vitiates its decision to abolish the OAT – Held: Failure of the Union Government to conduct a judicial impact assessment before abolishing the OAT does not vitiate its decision to abolish the OAT – Directions to conduct a judicial impact assessment in Rojer Mathew’s case were of a general nature and did not prohibit the abolition of specific tribunals such as the OAT in the absence of a judicial impact assessment - However, the Ministry of Law and Justice directed to conduct a judicial impact assessment as directed by this Court in Rojer Mathew’s case. General Clauses Act, 1897: s 21 – Applicability/ Invocation of – To rescind the notification establishing the OAT, thereby abolishing the OAT – Held: Union Government acted in valid exercise of its powers when it invoked s. 21 r/w s. 4(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act to rescind the notification establishing the OAT – Decision to establish the OAT was an administrative decision and not a quasi-judicial decision – Administrative decisions, unlike quasi-judicial decisions, may be reversed by the application of s. 21 – Moreover, s. 21 is not repugnant to the subject- matter, context and effect of the Administrative Tribunals Act and is in harmony with its scheme and object – Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 – s.4(2). Words and Phrases - “Functus officio” - Meaning of.
Judge	Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
Neutral Citation	2023 INSC 271
Petitioner	Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association
Respondent	Union Of India & Others
SCR	[2023] 6 S.C.R. 731
Judgement Date	2023-03-21
Case Number	6805

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association Vs. Union of India & Others

Please Log-in to view this content

State of Gujarat and Anr Vs. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal Bar Association and Anr.

Public Services Tribunal Bar Association Vs. State of U.p. and Anr

Supreme Court Bar Association & Ors. Vs. B.d. Kaushik

Union of India Vs. U.d. Dwivedi Etc.

Union of India Vs. Rajasthan High Court & Ors.

Madras Bar Association Vs. Union of India and Another

Union Public Service Commission Vs. Bibhu Prasad Sarangi and Others

Supreme Court Bar Association and Others Vs. B.d. Kaushik

Mohammed Ansari Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association Vs. Union of India & Others

Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association Vs. Union of India & Others

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

State of Gujarat and Anr Vs. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal Bar Association and Anr.

Public Services Tribunal Bar Association Vs. State of U.p. and Anr

Supreme Court Bar Association & Ors. Vs. B.d. Kaushik

Union of India Vs. U.d. Dwivedi Etc.

Union of India Vs. Rajasthan High Court & Ors.

Madras Bar Association Vs. Union of India and Another

Union Public Service Commission Vs. Bibhu Prasad Sarangi and Others

Supreme Court Bar Association and Others Vs. B.d. Kaushik

Mohammed Ansari Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association Vs. Union of India & Others