Page 40 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

A132 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

“9. If it is necessary to trace the source of power of this Court to issue the di-
rections and pass the order as in paragraph 18 of M. Bhaskar’s case [(1996) (4)
SCC 416] (supra) one can straightway look to Article 142 of the Constitution.
The said provision vests power in the Supreme Court to pass such decree or
make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any case or mat-
ter pending before it. The provision contains no limitation regarding the
causes or the circumstances in which the power can be exercised nor does it
lays down any condition to be satisfied before such power is exercised. The
exercise of the powers is left completely to the discretion of the highest Court
of the country and its order or decree is made binding on all the Courts or
Tribunals throughout the territory of India. However, this power is not to be
exercised to override any express provisions. It is not to be exercised in a case
where there is no basis in law which can form an edifice for building up a su-
perstructure. This Court has not hesitated to exercise the power under Article
142 of the Constitution whenever it was felt necessary in the interest of jus-
tice.”
[E.S.P. Rajaram and Others v. Union of India and Others - AIR 2001 SC 581]
In this regard, similar view has been taken in the decision in Textile La-
bour Association and Another v. The Official Liquidator and Another case :
“7. It is next contended that inasmuch as mandamus had been issued by
this Court as to priorioty of claims in the matter of payment that manda-
mus will prevail over any law. This Court examined the plenary powers
of this Court arising under Article 142 of the Constitution of India in
Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India and Another, (1998) 4 SCC
409 and held that ‘this Court in exercise of its power under Article 142
cannot ignore any substantive statutory provision dealing with the sub-
ject and it is only a residuary power, supplementary and complementary
to the powers specifically conferred on this Court by statutes exercisable
to do complete justice between the parties wherever it is just and equita-
ble to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of jus-
tice’. Though the order of this Court in respect of which review is sought
for may be read as having been made pursuant to exercise of powers
under Article 142 of the Constitution, still the same will have to be read
in the light of the decision of this Court Supreme Court Bar Association v.
Union of India and Another (supra).”
[Textile Labour Association and Another v. The Official Liquidator and Another
- AIR 2004 SC 2336]
In this regard, it was observed in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Others
case that this power exists as a separate and independent basis of jurisdiction
apart from the statutes and that under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Su-
preme Court cannot altogether ignore the substantive provisions of a statute and
pass orders concerning an issue which can be settled only through a mechanism
prescribed in another statute :
“20. The scope of Article 142 was considered in several decisions and re-
cently in Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 1895 :
(1998) 4 SCC 409 : (1998 AIR SCW 1706) by which the decision of this Court in
V.C. Mishra, Re, (1995) 2 SCC 584 was partly overruled, it was held that the
plenary power of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution are inherent
in the Court and are “COMPLEMENTARY” to those powers which are spe-
cifically conferred on the Court by various statutes. This power exists as a
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  40