Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
LPA 1051/2024 & CM APPL. 61576/2024
ANJU BALA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Prabhunath Ram Chaudhary and Mr. Vishal Sharma, Advocates.
Through: Mr. Siddhant Nath, Standing Counsel, MCD alongwith Mr. Bhavishya Makhija, Advocate for MCD.
Date of Decision: 21st October, 2024
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Accordingly, present application stands disposed of. LPA 1051/2024 & CM APPL. 61576/2024
3. Present letters patent appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 14th August, 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CM APPL. 46752/2024 in W.P.(C) 16194/2023, whereby the application filed by the appellant-respondent no.1, seeking vacation of ex parte interim order dated 15th December, 2023, was dismissed on the ground that directions issued by respondent no.2/National Commission for Scheduled Castes (‘NCSC’) for registration of the FIR clearly exceeds its jurisdiction. The underlying writ petition being W.P.(C) 16194/2023 has been filed by respondent no.1/MCD, challenging the order dated 03rd October, 2023 passed by NCSC directing registration of an FIR against a Junior Engineer of respondent no.1/MCD on the basis of a complaint filed by the appellant.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the interim order dated 15th December, 2023 was passed on the basis of false statements made by the MCD. He contends that the order dated 15th December, 2023 has caused grave prejudice to the appellant. He submits that the NCSC is empowered under Article 338 of the Constitution and Rules of Procedure, 2009 to investigate and inquire into the complaint of the appellant and pass appropriate recommendations and orders to safeguards rights of the appellant. In support of his submissions, he relies upon the Article 338 of the Constitution and Rules of Procedure, 2009, which reads as under:
(b) to inquire into specific complaints with respect to the deprivation of rights and safeguards of the Scheduled Castes;
(c) to participate and advise on the planning process of socioeconomic development of the Scheduled Castes and to evaluate the progress of their development under the Union and any State;
(d) to present to the President, annually and at such other times as the Commission may deem fit, reports upon the working of those safeguards; (e) to make in such reports recommendations as to the measures that should be taken by the Union or any State for the effective implementation of those safeguards and other measures for the protection, welfare and socio-economic development of the Scheduled Castes and (f) to discharge such other functions in relation to the protection, welfare and development and advancement of the Scheduled Castes as the President may, subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament, by rule specify. (6) The President shall cause all such reports to be laid before each House of Parliament along with a memorandum explaining the action taken or proposed to be taken on the recommendations relating to the Union and the reasons for the non-acceptance, if any, of any of such recommendations. (7) Where any such report, or any part thereof, relates to any matter with which any State Government is concerned, a copy of such report shall be forwarded to the Governor of the State who shall cause it to be laid before the Legislature of the State along with a memorandum explaining the action taken or proposed to be taken on the recommendations relating to the State and the reasons for the non-acceptance, if any, of any of such recommendations. (8) The Commission shall, while investigating any matter referred to in sub-clause (a) or inquiring into any complaint referred to in sub-clause (b) of clause (5), have all the powers of a civil court trying a suit and in particular in respect of the following matters, namely:— (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person from any part of India and examining him on oath; (b) requiring the discovery and production of any document;
(c) receiving evidence on affidavits;
(d) requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any court or office;
(e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses and documents; (f) any other matter which the President may, by rule, determine. (9) The Union and every State Government shall consult the Commission on all major policy matters affecting Scheduled Castes. (10) In this article, references to the Scheduled Castes shall be construed as including references to the Anglo-Indian community.”
5. He further contends that the NCSC was empowered to issue directions upon failure of police authorities to register an FIR.
6. He states that the MCD has adopted a selective approach in sealing the residential property of the appellant without any prior notice. He contends that the discrimination meted out to the appellant was because of her social position.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court is of the view that the present appeal is completely misconceived. The basic premise of the present appeal as well as the underlying application in the writ petition is untenable in law insofar as the NCSC is not empowered to “investigate” or issue any directions in the nature of a civil or criminal Court. A bare perusal of Article 338 of the Constitution reveals that the limited powers of a Civil Court can be exercised by the commission in furtherance of an investigation into matters relating to the safeguards provided for the Scheduled Castes. One of us, Manmohan, J., in Union of India vs. National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Anr., 2014 SCC OnLine Del 3324, has after taking into consideration the judgment of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Lal Chand & Ors., W.P.(C) 5468/2011 as well as All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees’ Welfare Association and Others vs. Union of India & Ors., I1996) 6 SCC 606 and Karnataka Antibiotics vs. National Commission for SC & ST, ILR 2008 Kar 3305 has held, “this Court is of the opinion that the Commission under Article 338 of the Constitution is not an adjudicatory body which can issue binding directions of injunction orders. This Court is of the view that the views of the Commission are recommendatory in nature and cannot be equated with decrees/orders passed by Civil Courts which are binding on the parties and can be enforced and executed. Commission’s reports are not alternative to the hierarchical judicial system envisaged under the Constitution of India.”
8. Further, the nature of orders passed by the Commission can only be recommendatory and not directory as is in the present case.
9. There is also a delay of fifteen days in filing the appeal.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, present appeal and application are dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merit. MANMOHAN, CJ TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J OCTOBER 21, 2024