Case Title: The Union of India v. Malini & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 12947 OF 2017
Date of Order: 31-07-2023
INTRODUCTION
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that the Railway Claims Tribunal is not authorized to penalize individuals who fail to comply with its directives to provide compensation to claimants.
FACTS
In response to Malini’s claim petition, the tribunal granted compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 according to Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. The petitioner, Union of India, was instructed to provide the compensation within 30 days.
As the petitioner failed to comply with the payment, the tribunal initiated actions and sent a notice to explain the situation.
The petitioner argued that once the tribunal issues an order, it becomes functus officio and lacks the authority to impose contempt charges. They contended that the tribunal is authorized to consider an execution request to carry out its order. Therefore, the issuance of a show-cause notice to the General Manager was considered to be beyond the tribunal’s jurisdiction. Additionally, they informed that the petitioner has now paid the complete compensation along with interest as directed by the tribunal. Hence, they requested the tribunal to terminate the proceedings.
COURT’S ANALYSIS
The court concurred with the petitioner’s argument and stated that according to the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, the Tribunal lacks the authority to impose penalties on individuals who disregard its rulings. Once the Tribunal concludes a case, it relinquishes jurisdiction over the matter and becomes legally ineffective (“functus officio”), in contrast to a Civil Court, which retains the power to penalize for non-compliance with its directives. The court further emphasized that the responsibility to initiate contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act lies with the claimant, and the Tribunal itself is not authorized to take action for non-adherence to its rulings.
Recognizing that the petitioner has already fulfilled the compensation obligation along with accrued interest, the court concluded that it is appropriate to conclude the proceedings before the Tribunal that were initiated based on the respondents’ application dated 07.11.2016.
A petition by the Union of India was granted by Justice R Nataraj, a sole judge on the bench. The 2017 order from the Tribunal, which had demanded an explanation from the General Manager of South Western Railway for not following the Tribunal’s directive and potentially facing consequences, was invalidated.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Shreya Sharma
