IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS W.P No.27519/2019 (S – CAT) Between:
1. The Union of India to be represented by its Secretary Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110 011.
2. Director General CPWD, Nirman Bhawan New Delhi – 110 011.
3. Sri Prabhakar Singh Working as Director General CPWD on re-employment basis Nirman Bhawan New Delhi – 110 011. .. Petitioners (By Sri Prabhuling K Navadgi, Sr. Counsel for Sri Jayakar Shetty H, Advocate) And :
1. Central Public Works Department Engineers Association, Bengaluru Zone Represented by its Zonal Secretary Sri A Mallikarjuna Reddy s/o late Venkata Reddy Occn:Assistant Engineer O/o Executive Engineer BCD-3 Kendriya Sadan `C’ Wing 3rd Floor, Bengaluru-560034.
2. Sri Manjunatha B N s/o R Natarajan Aged about 46 years Occn:Assistant Engineer O/o Executive Engineer HAL Project Division-I 4th Floor, Sri Visvesvaraya Kendriya Bhawan, Domlur Next to CPWD Quarters Bengaluru-560071. ..Respondents (By Sri P A Kulkarni, Advocate for C/R1) This WP is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for records from the Hon’ble CAT, Bangalore which ultimately resulted in passing the impugned order dated 4.6.2019 and 20.6.2019 Annexure-A made in OA No.586/2019 passed by the Hon’ble CAT and quash the order dated 4.6.2019 and 20.6.2019 Annexure-A made in OA No.586/2019 passed by the Hon’ble CAT, Bangalore and dismiss the OA No.586/2019 filed by the respondents.
This WP coming on for preliminary hearing this day, NARAYANA SWAMY J, passed the following:
ORDER The office memorandum regarding Revised Orginazational Structure of Central Public Works Department has been challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short `the Tribunal’) in OA No.586/2019, in which, the Tribunal has permitted both the parties to file written arguments along with rulings on which they rely, with relevant portions marked with marker ink.
2. The Tribunal issued notice to respondents and also directed them to file objections and in the meanwhile, granted interim order staying the operation of Annexure-A6 dated 25.3.2019 and posted the matter for further hearing.
3. The petitioners contended that the Tribunal should have dismissed the application at the threshold itself, since the applicants-respondents are not aggrieved persons in view of Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and they have no locus standi to question the order dated 25.3.2019. The Tribunal virtually stayed the said order, which resulted in stoppage of all the works and the entire machinery of CPWD has come to a standstill. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal committed an error in granting the interim order and while granting the said interim order, the Tribunal should have examined its jurisdiction under the Administrative Tribunals Act.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Tribunal after hearing both the parties passed the order impugned in this petition. The applicants are in a position to apprise the Tribunal about locus standi and also jurisdiction. Under these circumstances, learned counsel submits to dispose of this matter without expressing any opinion on merits and without prejudice to the parties.
5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on both the parties.
6. The respondent/applicants have approached the Tribunal with a prayer to quash the office memorandum dated 25.3.2019 relating to Revised Organisation Structure of CPWD directing the revised structure to come into force from 1.4.2019. Before granting any interim order, the Tribunal has to look into its jurisdiction and locus standi. Unless and until, these preliminary points are satisfied, the Tribunal cannot grant an interim order.
7. We have gone through the pleadings and the interim prayer made before the Tribunal. The fact remains that when the application is filed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal will go into the matter and appreciate the various questions raised therein with reference to law on the point. Under these circumstances, we hold that it is appropriate to request the Tribunal to hear both the parties particularly mainly on jurisdiction and pass an order in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.
The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the main application itself since the entire activity of CPWD all over the country is stated to have come to a standstill as expeditiously as possible.
SD/- JUDGE Bkm SD/-
JUDGE