18.
The answer is: A
Explanation
The correct option is A: It is binding on an administrative tribunal of that state.
This is because the High Court of a State exercises supervisory jurisdiction over all the subordinate courts and tribunals within its territorial limits. Therefore, the law declared by the High Court is binding on the authorities or tribunals under its superintendence and they cannot ignore it either in initiating a proceeding or deciding on the rights involved in such proceeding. This principle was affirmed by the Supreme Court in East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta [AIR 1962 SC 1893], where it held that:
"The High Courts in India are superior courts of record. They have original and appellate jurisdiction. They have inherent and plenary powers. Unless expressly or impliedly barred, and subject to the appellate or discretionary jurisdiction of this Court, the High Courts have unlimited jurisdiction, including the jurisdiction to determine their own powers."
The other options are incorrect because:
Option B is incorrect because a judgment of a High Court of a State is not binding on an administrative tribunal of another state, unless there is no contrary decision by the High Court of that state on the same issue. In such a case, the judgment of a High Court of a State may have persuasive value to an administrative tribunal of another state, but not binding authority.
Option C is incorrect because a judgment of a High Court of a State is not merely of persuasive value to an administrative tribunal of that state, but has binding force as explained above.
Option D is incorrect because a judgment of a High Court of a State has value to the administrative tribunals in India, either as binding or persuasive authority, depending on the territorial jurisdiction and the availability of contrary decisions.
Option E is incorrect because a judgment of a High Court of a State has value to an administrative tribunal of that state, as it is binding on it as explained above.