High Court held that the relocation of the NCLT Kolkata Bench is a policy matter for administrative efficiency and, in the absence of arbitrariness or legal infirmity, does not warrant judicial interference.
The Calcutta High Court Single-Judge Bench of Justice Amrita Sinha held that the relocation of the NCLT Kolkata Bench was a policy decision within the government's domain, aimed at infrastructural and operational efficiency, and did not warrant judicial interference absent arbitrariness or legal infirmity.
The writ petition had been filed challenging the decision of the respondent authority to shift the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Kolkata Bench from its present location at Esplanade Row West, B.B.D. Bag, Kolkata, to Corporate Bhawan in New Town, Kolkata. The petitioners, including the Bar Association representing advocates practicing in NCLT, a litigant with pending matters, and a clerk of an advocate, contended that the current location was more accessible and had adequate space to house the existing benches. They argued that the new location was remote, lacked necessary infrastructure, and would cause inconvenience to all stakeholders.
The petitioners had asserted that NCLT should function independently and not as an extended arm of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. They had expressed concerns that the shift could compromise judicial independence, emphasizing the importance of Article 50 of the Constitution, which mandates the separation of the judiciary from the executive. The lack of public consultation before making the decision had also been highlighted, along with the argument that the current building was not a heritage structure and could be suitably modified to meet NCLT’s requirements. The petitioners had sought a writ of Mandamus to restrain the respondents from relocating the Tribunal and to allow it to function from its present premises.
The respondents, represented by the Deputy Solicitor General, had opposed the petition, asserting that the allegations regarding interference with judicial independence were not part of the original pleadings but were only raised in oral submissions. They had contended that the decision to shift NCLT was a policy matter beyond judicial interference, particularly as access to justice would not be hindered. The respondents had argued that space constraints in the current building were delaying case resolution, as additional benches could not be accommodated, and that the new site would provide modern infrastructure, facilitating more efficient operations.
It had been further submitted that the decision to shift the Tribunal had been taken long ago, and significant investment had already been made in constructing the new facility. The respondents had assured that all necessary infrastructure, including support systems and virtual hearing facilities, would be available at the new premises. They had also pointed out that other regulatory offices related to corporate affairs would be housed in the same building, enhancing administrative efficiency. Additionally, the new location was part of a developing area expected to offer improved connectivity and amenities over time.
Reliance had been placed on Supreme Court judgments, including Union of India vs. R. Gandhi, which emphasized that Tribunals should receive administrative support from the Ministry of Law and Justice. However, the respondents had maintained that NCLT had always been under the Ministry of Corporate Affairs without compromising its independence. The Court had also been referred to decisions in the Federation of Railway Officers’ Association and the Railway Claims Tribunal Advocates’ Association, which upheld that shifting a Tribunal was an administrative decision unless tainted by arbitrariness or legal mala fide.
After considering the submissions and materials on record, the Court acknowledged the concerns raised by the petitioners but noted that the infrastructural support for NCLT had always been provided by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. The contention regarding judicial independence had not been originally pleaded, and the Court had found no substantial evidence to support the claim that the relocation would compromise the Tribunal’s autonomy. The argument that distance and accessibility should dictate the Tribunal’s location had been weighed against the necessity of expanding its infrastructure to enhance efficiency. Citing precedent, the Court had held that determining the situs of a Tribunal was within the domain of the government and should not be interfered with unless it involved clear arbitrariness or legal infirmity.
Consequently, the Court had dismissed the writ petition, holding that the decision to shift the NCLT Kolkata Bench to Corporate Bhawan was a policy matter, undertaken for administrative efficiency and infrastructural advancement. The petitioners’ objections, while noted, had not been found sufficient to warrant judicial intervention in the government’s decision-making process regarding the Tribunal’s location.
Mr. Joy Saha and Mrs. Manju Bhuteria, Sr. Advocates, Mr. Patita Paban Bishwal, Ms. Urmila Chakraborty, Ms. Namrrataa Basu, Mr. Kanishk Kejriwal, Ms. Rashhmi Singhee, Ms. Janvi Luhariwala, Ms. Arundhuti Burman, Ms. Aishwarya Chowdhury and Mr. Dripto Majumdar, Advocates, represented the Appellants.
Mr. Dhiraj Trivedi and Mr. Avinash Kankani, Advocates, appeared for Respondent No. 1.
Subscribers can access the Case, including Case Analysis, Ratio Decidendi, Headnotes, Briefs, Case Research, Cited Case Laws, Case Law Cross-references, and the latest updates on Statutes, Notifications, Circulars, Guidelines, Press Releases and more.
Click on the following Citation/Link to access these resources:
Opmerkingen