However, Justice Kesang Doma Bhutia held that a Fast Track Court cannot independently receive presentation of any application under the Guardians and Wards Act but can only discharge those functions assigned to them by District Judge.
“Jurisdiction to entertain application under the Act of 1890 has exclusively been vested upon District Judge being Principal Judge in Civil Court of original jurisdiction over local limits of its jurisdiction within District. When an application under the Act is transferred to Additional District Judge by District Judge, the Additional District Judge is competent to consider said application as a Judge of a District Court and his competence cannot be challenged for want of authorization (from High Court) under Section 4 A of the said Act,” the Court held.
While it is true that a judge of a Fast Track Court is appointed as Additional District Judge on the basis of ad hoc promotion and their service is subject to regularization in the cadre of District Judge entry level on their passing limited competitive examination or on promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, but like a District Judge or regular Additional District Judge it has power to hear all the cases both civil and criminal which a District Judge or a regular Additional Judge can hear and dispose of, the High Court held.
“This Court is of view that Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court is not a subordinate to District Court so far as judicial function is concerned and as such Additional Fast Track Court is competent to hear matter under Guardian and Wards Act and there is no need of any general or special order from the High Court to empower Fast Track Court under Section 4 A of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 to dispose of any proceeding under the Act,” the order further said.
Source: Barandbench
