Union Of INDIA And 2 Ors vs. Piyush Choudhary

Held

The High Court declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The Court reasoned that since the Central Administrative Tribunal, in its interim order dated 20.05.2022, had explicitly granted liberty to the respondent to seek modification or vacation of that order, it was more appropriate for the petitioners to pursue that avenue. The Court held that entertaining the writ petition at this stage would not be fitting, and the matter should be allowed to proceed before the Tribunal. The Court's decision was based on the principle of allowing the statutory forum to address the issues first, especially when it has provided a mechanism for modification or vacation of its own orders. The Court also stated that the disposal of the petition would not prejudice the rights of either party before the Tribunal.

Facts

The petitioners, Union of India and two other revenue authorities, have challenged an interim order dated 20.05.2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Guwahati Bench, in O.A. No. 111/2020. The respondent is Piyush Choudhary, an Intelligence Officer with the Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence (DGGI). The proceedings before the Tribunal were pending. The impugned order was an interim one, and the revenue authorities had accepted notice. The Tribunal had granted liberty to the respondent to seek modification or vacation of the interim order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with an interim order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal when the Tribunal itself has granted liberty to the parties to seek modification or vacation of that order. Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that the High Court should entertain their petition challenging the interim order. However, the judgment does not explicitly detail their arguments beyond seeking intervention. Respondent's contention: The respondent's arguments are not recorded in the judgment. The Tribunal had granted liberty to the respondent to seek modification/vacation of the interim order.