Full News

High Court Quashes Tribunal’s Order Seeking Ministry’s Opinion, Directs Fresh Merits Hearing

This case involves Shanti Kishan and others challenging an order from the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Srinagar Bench. The Tribunal had asked the Ministry of Corporate Affairs for its opinion on a dispute, but the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh ruled that the Tribunal should decide the case itself, without relying on an outside agency. The High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order and directed it to resolve the case on its own merits, preferably within two weeks.

Get the full picture - access the original judgement of the court order here

Case Name

Shanti Kishan and Ors. v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and Ors.(High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar)

WP(C)No. 869/2025 CM No. 2256/2025

Date: 21st April 2025

Key Takeaways

Tribunal’s Role: The Central Administrative Tribunal cannot delegate its decision-making responsibility to an outside agency like the Ministry of Corporate Affairs.
Ministry’s Opinion Not Binding: Any opinion from the Ministry is not binding on the Tribunal; the Tribunal must independently adjudicate the dispute.
Expedited Hearing: The High Court directed the Tribunal to decide the case on its merits quickly, ideally within two weeks.
Judicial Oversight: The High Court reinforced that judicial bodies must not abdicate their core function of adjudication.

Issue

Can the Central Administrative Tribunal refer a legal dispute to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs for its opinion, and is such an opinion binding on the Tribunal?

Facts

Parties: The petitioners are Shanti Kishan and others. The respondents are the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and others.
Background: The dispute was originally before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar Bench, in OA No. 206/2022.
Tribunal’s Order: On 12th February 2025, the Tribunal ordered the Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India, to provide its opinion on the controversy.
Petitioners’ Challenge: The petitioners challenged this order in the High Court, arguing that the Tribunal should not delegate its adjudicatory function to the Ministry and that any opinion from the Ministry would not be binding on the Tribunal.
Hearing: The case was heard by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani on 21st April 2025.

Arguments

Petitioners (Shanti Kishan and Ors.)

The Tribunal cannot abdicate its judicial function by seeking an opinion from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs.
The Ministry’s role is limited to certifying the date of incorporation of a company under the Indian Companies Act; it cannot opine on the legal dispute at hand.
Any opinion from the Ministry is not binding on the Tribunal.

Respondents (UT of JK and Ors.)

The order was discussed, and there was consensus among counsel for both sides that the Tribunal should decide the case on its own merits, without seeking an outside opinion.

Key Legal Precedents

Note: The judgment does not cite any specific case laws or statutory sections/rules by name or number. The only legal reference is to Article 226 of the Constitution of India, under which the writ petition was filed.

Judgement

Order Set Aside: The High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order dated 12th February 2025.
Direction to Tribunal: The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the original application (OA) on its own merits, without seeking any opinion from any outside agency.
Expedited Process: The Tribunal is requested to prioritize the matter and decide it as soon as possible, preferably within two weeks.
Case Disposed: The writ petition is disposed of in these terms.

FAQs

Q1: Why did the High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order?

A: Because the Tribunal cannot delegate its judicial function to an outside agency like the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. The Tribunal must decide the case itself.

Q2: Is the Ministry of Corporate Affairs’ opinion binding on the Tribunal?

A: No, any opinion from the Ministry is not binding on the Tribunal.

Q3: What happens next in the case?

A: The Tribunal must now hear and decide the original application on its own merits, without relying on any outside opinion, and do so quickly.

Q4: Did the High Court cite any specific case laws or statutory provisions?

A: The only legal provision mentioned is Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which allows the High Court to issue writs. No specific case laws or sections/rules were cited in the judgment.

Q5: What is the significance of this decision?

A: It reinforces that judicial bodies must independently decide disputes and cannot pass their decision-making responsibility to administrative agencies.

Similar Ripples

Questions

There is no question

High Court Quashes Tribunal’s Order Seeking Ministry’s Opinion, Directs Fresh Merits Hearing

Write your Comment

Generic

Reportdata/CA-HC-JK-869-2025.pdf

Would you like to edit this news ? Edit

Select Format

You get opportunity to take 30 day Challenge program.

Optional

Advanced

You get opportunity to take 30 day Challenge program.

Optional

Add tags

You get opportunity to take 30 day Challenge program.

Optional

PUBLISH IT

Don't sell
PUBLISH IT
Publish privately
SAVE AS DRAFT

Dont't publish now

<a href="https://thakurani.sgp1.digitaloceanspaces.com/media/data/CA-HC-JK-869-2025.pdf" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 204);">Get the full picture - access the original judgement of the court order here</a><h3>Case Name</h3>Shanti Kishan and Ors. v. Union Territory of Jammu &amp; Kashmir and Ors.(High Court of Jammu &amp; Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar)WP(C)No. 869/2025 CM No. 2256/2025Date: 21st April 2025<h3>Key Takeaways</h3><ul><li>Tribunal’s Role:&nbsp;The Central Administrative Tribunal cannot delegate its decision-making responsibility to an outside agency like the Ministry of Corporate Affairs.</li><li>Ministry’s Opinion Not Binding:&nbsp;Any opinion from the Ministry is not binding on the Tribunal; the Tribunal must independently adjudicate the dispute.</li><li>Expedited Hearing:&nbsp;The High Court directed the Tribunal to decide the case on its merits quickly, ideally within two weeks.</li><li>Judicial Oversight:&nbsp;The High Court reinforced that judicial bodies must not abdicate their core function of adjudication.</li></ul><h3>Issue</h3>Can the Central Administrative Tribunal refer a legal dispute to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs for its opinion, and is such an opinion binding on the Tribunal?<h3>Facts</h3><ul><li>Parties:&nbsp;The petitioners are Shanti Kishan and others. The respondents are the Union Territory of Jammu &amp; Kashmir and others.</li><li>Background:&nbsp;The dispute was originally before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar Bench, in OA No. 206/2022.</li><li>Tribunal’s Order:&nbsp;On 12th February 2025, the Tribunal ordered the Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India, to provide its opinion on the controversy.</li><li>Petitioners’ Challenge:&nbsp;The petitioners challenged this order in the High Court, arguing that the Tribunal should not delegate its adjudicatory function to the Ministry and that any opinion from the Ministry would not be binding on the Tribunal.</li><li>Hearing:&nbsp;The case was heard by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani on 21st April 2025.</li></ul><h3>Arguments</h3>Petitioners (Shanti Kishan and Ors.)<ul><li>The Tribunal cannot abdicate its judicial function by seeking an opinion from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs.</li><li>The Ministry’s role is limited to certifying the date of incorporation of a company under the Indian Companies Act; it cannot opine on the legal dispute at hand.</li><li>Any opinion from the Ministry is not binding on the Tribunal.</li></ul> Respondents (UT of JK and Ors.)<ul><li>The order was discussed, and there was consensus among counsel for both sides that the Tribunal should decide the case on its own merits, without seeking an outside opinion.</li></ul><h3>Key Legal Precedents</h3>Note:&nbsp;The judgment does not cite any specific case laws or statutory sections/rules by name or number. The only legal reference is to Article 226 of the Constitution of India, under which the writ petition was filed.<h3>Judgement</h3><ul><li>Order Set Aside:&nbsp;The High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order dated 12th February 2025.</li><li>Direction to Tribunal:&nbsp;The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the original application (OA) on its own merits, without seeking any opinion from any outside agency.</li><li>Expedited Process:&nbsp;The Tribunal is requested to prioritize the matter and decide it as soon as possible, preferably within two weeks.</li><li>Case Disposed:&nbsp;The writ petition is disposed of in these terms.</li></ul><h3>FAQs</h3>Q1: Why did the High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order?A: Because the Tribunal cannot delegate its judicial function to an outside agency like the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. The Tribunal must decide the case itself. Q2: Is the Ministry of Corporate Affairs’ opinion binding on the Tribunal?A: No, any opinion from the Ministry is not binding on the Tribunal. Q3: What happens next in the case?A: The Tribunal must now hear and decide the original application on its own merits, without relying on any outside opinion, and do so quickly. Q4: Did the High Court cite any specific case laws or statutory provisions?A: The only legal provision mentioned is Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which allows the High Court to issue writs. No specific case laws or sections/rules were cited in the judgment. Q5: What is the significance of this decision?A: It reinforces that judicial bodies must independently decide disputes and cannot pass their decision-making responsibility to administrative agencies.

<a href="https://thakurani.sgp1.digitaloceanspaces.com/media/data/CA-HC-JK-869-2025.pdf" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 204);">Get the full picture - access the original judgement of the court order here</a><h3>Case Name</h3>Shanti Kishan and Ors. v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and Ors.(High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar)WP(C)No. 869/2025 CM No. 2256/2025Date: 21st April 2025<h3>Key Takeaways</h3><ul><li>Tribunal’s Role: The Central Administrative Tribunal cannot delegate its decision-making responsibility to an outside agency like the Ministry of Corporate Affairs.</li><li>Ministry’s Opinion Not Binding: Any opinion from the Ministry is not binding on the Tribunal; the Tribunal must independently adjudicate the dispute.</li><li>Expedited Hearing: The High Court directed the Tribunal to decide the case on its merits quickly, ideally within two weeks.</li><li>Judicial Oversight: The High Court reinforced that judicial bodies must not abdicate their core function of adjudication.</li></ul><h3>Issue</h3>Can the Central Administrative Tribunal refer a legal dispute to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs for its opinion, and is such an opinion binding on the Tribunal?<h3>Facts</h3><ul><li>Parties: The petitioners are Shanti Kishan and others. The respondents are the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and others.</li><li>Background: The dispute was originally before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar Bench, in OA No. 206/2022.</li><li>Tribunal’s Order: On 12th February 2025, the Tribunal ordered the Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India, to provide its opinion on the controversy.</li><li>Petitioners’ Challenge: The petitioners challenged this order in the High Court, arguing that the Tribunal should not delegate its adjudicatory function to the Ministry and that any opinion from the Ministry would not be binding on the Tribunal.</li><li>Hearing: The case was heard by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani on 21st April 2025.</li></ul><h3>Arguments</h3>Petitioners (Shanti Kishan and Ors.)<ul><li>The Tribunal cannot abdicate its judicial function by seeking an opinion from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs.</li><li>The Ministry’s role is limited to certifying the date of incorporation of a company under the Indian Companies Act; it cannot opine on the legal dispute at hand.</li><li>Any opinion from the Ministry is not binding on the Tribunal.</li></ul> Respondents (UT of JK and Ors.)<ul><li>The order was discussed, and there was consensus among counsel for both sides that the Tribunal should decide the case on its own merits, without seeking an outside opinion.</li></ul><h3>Key Legal Precedents</h3>Note: The judgment does not cite any specific case laws or statutory sections/rules by name or number. The only legal reference is to Article 226 of the Constitution of India, under which the writ petition was filed.<h3>Judgement</h3><ul><li>Order Set Aside: The High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order dated 12th February 2025.</li><li>Direction to Tribunal: The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the original application (OA) on its own merits, without seeking any opinion from any outside agency.</li><li>Expedited Process: The Tribunal is requested to prioritize the matter and decide it as soon as possible, preferably within two weeks.</li><li>Case Disposed: The writ petition is disposed of in these terms.</li></ul><h3>FAQs</h3>Q1: Why did the High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order?A: Because the Tribunal cannot delegate its judicial function to an outside agency like the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. The Tribunal must decide the case itself. Q2: Is the Ministry of Corporate Affairs’ opinion binding on the Tribunal?A: No, any opinion from the Ministry is not binding on the Tribunal. Q3: What happens next in the case?A: The Tribunal must now hear and decide the original application on its own merits, without relying on any outside opinion, and do so quickly. Q4: Did the High Court cite any specific case laws or statutory provisions?A: The only legal provision mentioned is Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which allows the High Court to issue writs. No specific case laws or sections/rules were cited in the judgment. Q5: What is the significance of this decision?A: It reinforces that judicial bodies must independently decide disputes and cannot pass their decision-making responsibility to administrative agencies.

Hi Thakurani,
I want to withdraw in my Thakurani wallet
Thanks,

Select the reason for validity check

I feel great..the news is still good.please give the reason too..thanks..

Why do you think the News as invalid?” Please mention the reason.

I appreciate your effort. May I request you to select one of the reasons from below.
I am marking this post and your reason to Thakurani Moderators. They will take appropriate action.
Thanks,

Write your reason

My Dear ,

Harassing

Spam

Ingenuine

Rotten

Alien

Plagiarism

Unformatted

Full News

High Court Quashes Tribunal’s Order Seeking Ministry’s Opinion, Directs Fresh Merits Hearing