TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Confirms States' Right to Abolish Tribunals Under Madhya Pradesh Re-organization Act; Dismisses Excessive Delegation Claims.</h1> <h3>M.P. High Court Bar Association Versus Union of India and Others</h3> M.P. High Court Bar Association Versus Union of India and Others - 2005 AIR 4114, 2004 (4) Suppl. SCR 520, 2004 (11) SCC 766, 2004 (7) JT 548, 2004 (8) ... Issues Involved:1. Constitutionality of Section 74(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Re-organisation Act, 20002. Delegation of Legislative Power3. Mala Fide Exercise of Power4. Role of Central Government in Abolishing the TribunalSummary:1. Constitutionality of Section 74(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Re-organisation Act, 2000The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 74(1) of the Act of 2000, which allows the State Governments of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh to abolish the State Administrative Tribunal by mutual agreement. The Court noted that Article 323A of the Constitution is not self-executory and merely enables Parliament to establish Administrative Tribunals. The power to abolish such tribunals was within the legislative competence of Parliament, and the provision does not violate any constitutional mandate.2. Delegation of Legislative PowerThe Court rejected the argument that Section 74(1) of the Act of 2000 constitutes 'excessive delegation' of legislative power. It distinguished between 'delegated legislation' and 'conditional legislation,' holding that the provision in question falls under the latter category. The legislature had laid down the policy and left the discretion to the State Governments to decide on the continuation or abolition of the Tribunal, which is permissible under constitutional law.3. Mala Fide Exercise of PowerThe allegation that the State Government's decision to abolish the Tribunal was mala fide and based on adverse judicial orders was not substantiated with concrete evidence. The Court found that the decision was taken after considering relevant factors, including the Supreme Court's decision in L. Chandra Kumar, which restored the jurisdiction of High Courts over Tribunal decisions. The Court held that the decision was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable.4. Role of Central Government in Abolishing the TribunalThe Court clarified that sub-section (4) of Section 74 of the Act of 2000 does not require the Central Government to issue directions for the abolition of the Tribunal if both successor States mutually agree to abolish it. The Central Government's role is limited to resolving disputes between the States, and it has no discretion to override the mutual decision of the States regarding the Tribunal's abolition.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The abolition of the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal by the State Government was found to be legal, constitutional, and in accordance with the legislative framework provided by Parliament. The Court also dismissed the petitions challenging the High Court's decision and confirmed that no directions from the Central Government were necessary for the abolition of the Tribunal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
