The constitutional validity of sub-sec. (6) of S. 5 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and the permissibility of a single Member Bench to hear matters with certain safeguards.

JUDGMENT

These matters relate to hearing by single Member Benches of matters before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the State Administrative Tribunals constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The power to constitute a single Member Bench is traced to sub-sec. (6) of S. 5 of the said Act.

2. The appellant/petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of sub-sec. (6) of S. 5 and have placed reliance on the observations of this Court in S. P. Sampat Kumar v. Union of India (1987) 1 SCR 435. It appears that the matter came up before this Court in Amulya Chandra Kalita v. Union of India, (1991) 1 SCC 181 wherein a two-Judge Bench, after referring to the provisions contained in S. 5(2) and the observations in Sampat Kumars case (supra), has held that a Bench shall consist of one Judicial Member and an Administrative Member and an Administrative Member alone cannot hear and decide a matter. Thereafter in Dr. Mahabal Ram v. Indian Council of Agriculture Research, Civil Appeal No. 2381 decided on May 3, 1991 by a three-Judge Bench, the earlier decision in Amulya Chandra Kalitas case (supra) has been considered and the observations in Sampat Kumars case (supra) have also been taken note of. This Court has, however, referred to sub-sec. (6) of S. 5 and has held that it may be permissible for a single Member Bench of the Tribunal to hear matters subject to certain safeguards that have been provided with regard to exercise of the power under S. 5(6). In that case, however, it has been observed that the validity of sub-sec. (6) of S. 5 was not challenged. It may also be stated that the said decision was rendered without hearing the counsel for the respondents.

3. Having heard counsel for both the parties, we consider it appropriate that the matters are heard by a three-Judge Bench of this Court because the validity of sub-sec. (6) of S. 5 has been challenged in these matters. The matter may be placed before Honble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions.

C.A. No.4501/89:

4. Shri K. V. Vishwanathan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, states that he would like to avail the benefit of the observations in Dr. Mahabal Rams case. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the observations made by this Court in Dr. Mahabal Rams case and the appellant is permitted to move the Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal for appropriate directions in the light of the said observations.

Order accordingly.

For Citation : AIR 1994 SC 1266