H. S. Yadav vs Shakuntala Devi Parakh

(2) thereof empowers the appropriate legislature to constitute tribunal to deal with the issues relating to rent and its regulations – Thus, it is not disputed that the State has the power to constitute the Tribunal – Art.246 specifically provides that Parliament has exclusive powers to make laws in respect of matters enumerated in List I (Union List) – State has exclusive powers to make laws in respect of matters falling in List II (State List)– In respect of matters in the List III (Concurrent List), both the Union and the State have the power to enact laws but, if the field is occupied by any law enacted by the Parliament then the State cannot legislate on the same issue – Entry 77 of List I gives power to the Union in respect of jurisdiction and the powers of the Supreme Court – This power cannot be exercised by the State Legislature – Further, Entry 65 of List II indicates that the State Legislature has no power to enact any legislation relating to jurisdiction and power of the Supreme Court – This power is specifically excluded – Even, Entry 46 of List III makes it clear that as far as the jurisdictional powers of the Supreme Court are concerned, they cannot be exercised under the Concurrent List – Therefore, the powers with regard to jurisdiction and power of the Supreme Court vest with the Union and Parliament alone can enact legislation in this regard – s.13(2) of the 2011 Act, in so far as it provides an appeal directly to the Supreme Court, is ultra vires the Constitution and beyond the scope of the powers of the State Legislature and is accordingly, struck down – No reason why the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court should be excluded – Open to the appellant to approach the High Court for redressal of his grievance u/Art.227, on which the High Court shall decide the matter strictly in accordance with law – Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 – ss. 6, 7, 13. Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 – s.13(2) – Held: s.13(2), in so far as it provides an appeal directly to the Supreme Court, is ultra vires the Constitution and beyond the scope of the powers of the State Legislature and is accordingly, struck down. Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1 The Tribunal has been constituted in exercise of the powers vested in the State Legislature under Article 323B of the Constitution of India which deals with tribunal for other matters. Sub-clause (h) of Clause (2) of the said Article empowers the appropriate legislature to constitute a tribunal to deal with the issues relating to rent and its regulations. It is not disputed that the State has the power to constitute the Tribunal. Article 246 of the Constitution specifically provides that Parliament has exclusive powers to make laws in respect of matters enumerated in List I (Union List) of the Seventh Schedule. Likewise, the State has exclusive powers to make laws in respect of matters falling in List II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule. In the Concurrent List, i.e. List III , both the Union and the State have the power to enact laws but if the field is occupied by any law enacted by Parliament then the State cannot legislate on the same issue. Entry 77 gives power to the Union in respect of jurisdiction and the powers of the Supreme Court. This power cannot be exercised by the State Legislature. [Paras 7-10] [738-E-F; 739-A-D]

1.2 Entry 65 of List II of the Seventh Schedule clearly indicates that the State Legislature has no power to enact any legislation relating to jurisdiction and power of the Supreme Court. This power is specifically excluded. Even Entry 46 of List III of the Seventh Schedule makes it clear that as far as the jurisdictional powers of the Supreme Court are concerned, they cannot be exercised under the Concurrent List. Therefore, the powers with regard to jurisdiction and power of the Supreme Court vest with the Union and Parliament alone can enact a legislation in this regard. The power of the Supreme Court under Article 136 is always there. However, the State cannot enact a legislation providing an appeal directly to the Supreme Court. That would amount to entrenching upon the jurisdiction of the Union, which the State Legislature does not have. The men who drafted the Act did not even consider the hierarchy of Courts. The Rent Control Tribunal is headed by a retired Judge of the High Court or District Judge in the Super Time Scale or above. What was the rationale of making such an order appealable directly to the Supreme Court? No reason why the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court should be excluded. Section 13(2) of the Act, in so far as it provides an appeal directly to the Supreme Court, is totally illegal, ultra vires the Constitution and beyond the scope of the powers of the State Legislature. Section 13(2) of the Act is accordingly struck down. In L. Chandrakumar vs. Union of India, Supreme Court clearly held that tribunals constituted under Articles 323A and 323B of the Constitution are subject to the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts. In view of the law laid down in L. Chandrakumar’s case, the High Court can exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution against the orders of the Rent Control Tribunal. An appeal under Section 13 (2) of the Act directly to the Supreme Court is not maintainable. However, it is left open to the appellant to approach the High Court for redressal of his grievance under Article 227 of the Constitution. If the appellant does so, the High Court shall decide the matter strictly in accordance with law. [Paras 11-14, 15-17] [739-F-H; 740-A-G]

L. Chandrakumar vs. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC

119 – followed.