Tribunal abolition upheld as Article 323A is enabling, rescission under general powers was valid, and access to justice remained intact.

Writ petitions challenging abolition of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal were maintainable because the petitioners showed a justiciable legal grievance. Article 323A was held to be enabling, not mandatory, so it did not require continued existence of State Administrative Tribunals or bar abolition. Section 21 of the General Clauses Act permitted rescission of the notification establishing the Tribunal, and the abolition was neither arbitrary nor violative of Article 14 or access to justice, as service disputes would continue before the High Court. No breach of natural justice arose from the absence of individual hearings, the Union Government was not functus officio, and the notification was not invalid merely because it was not expressed in the name of the President.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petitions challenging abolition of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal were maintainable; (ii) whether Article 323A of the Constitution mandates establishment of State Administrative Tribunals and bars their abolition; (iii) whether Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 could be invoked to rescind the notification establishing the Tribunal; (iv) whether the abolition notification was arbitrary or violative of Article 14 and the right of access to justice; (v) whether principles of natural justice were breached by not hearing affected stakeholders; (vi) whether the Union Government became functus officio after establishing the Tribunal; and (vii) whether the notification was invalid for not being expressed in the name of the President.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petitions challenging abolition of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal were maintainable

Analysis: The petitioners were registered associations and alleged violation of legal and constitutional rights, including access to justice and equality. A petitioner invoking writ jurisdiction need not prove the claim at the threshold, but must show a legal grievance capable of examination under Article 226.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether Article 323A of the Constitution mandates establishment of State Administrative Tribunals and bars their abolition

Analysis: The word "may" in Article 323A indicates an enabling and directory power, not a compulsory mandate. The scheme, object, and context of the provision show that Parliament was empowered, but not obliged, to create tribunals, and the same logic permits reassessment of their utility after creation.

Conclusion: Article 323A does not mandate establishment or continuation of State Administrative Tribunals and does not bar abolition.

Issue (iii): Whether Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 could be invoked to rescind the notification establishing the Tribunal

Analysis: Section 21 embodies a rule of construction permitting rescission where the parent statute is not repugnant to such power. The decision to establish the Tribunal was administrative and based on policy, not quasi-judicial. The Administrative Tribunals Act does not contain anything inconsistent with rescission of the establishing notification, and abolition merely restores the pre-existing forum.

Conclusion: Section 21 was validly invoked to rescind the notification establishing the Tribunal.

Issue (iv): Whether the abolition notification was arbitrary or violative of Article 14 and the right of access to justice

Analysis: The State and Union Governments relied on relevant considerations, including the impact of later constitutional developments, pendency, disposal rate, and expenditure. The abolition was not based on extraneous factors and was not so unreasonable that no rational authority would adopt it. Access to justice was preserved because service matters would be heard by the High Court, and the policy did not leave litigants remediless.

Conclusion: The abolition notification was neither arbitrary nor violative of Article 14 or the fundamental right of access to justice.

Issue (v): Whether principles of natural justice were breached by not hearing affected stakeholders

Analysis: The decision to abolish the Tribunal was a policy decision. A pre-decisional hearing to every affected person or class member is not required for policy choices of general application, though such decisions remain open to judicial review if otherwise unlawful.

Conclusion: There was no violation of natural justice.

Issue (vi): Whether the Union Government became functus officio after establishing the Tribunal

Analysis: Functus officio applies to adjudicative decisions that have attained finality, not to policy decisions of the executive. The power to establish a tribunal did not exhaust the Government's authority to revisit policy and rescind the notification later.

Conclusion: The Union Government did not become functus officio.

Issue (vii): Whether the notification was invalid for not being expressed in the name of the President

Analysis: Article 77 is directory as to form. Non-compliance with the form of expression does not invalidate executive action taken under statutory authority; it only removes the presumption of proper authentication. The notification was otherwise a valid exercise of statutory power.

Conclusion: The notification was not invalid on that ground.

Final Conclusion: The abolition of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal was upheld as constitutionally and legally valid, and the challenge to the notification was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A tribunal established under an enabling statutory or constitutional framework may be abolished by rescinding the establishing notification where the original establishment was an administrative policy decision, the governing statute is not repugnant to such rescission, and the abolition is not arbitrary, unconstitutional, or violative of natural justice or access to justice.

---