Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Kuldip Singh, M.H. Kania, Ranganath Mishra
DR. MAHABAL RAM, APPELLANT
Versus
INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS.
Civil Appeal No. 2381 of 1991 (Arising out of SLP No. 6728 of 1990), decided on May 3, 1991.
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 5 - Jurisdiction to dispose of matters - Legal training and judicial experience - It is necessary to bear in mind that service matters which are removed from jurisdiction of High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution and entrusted to Administrative Tribunal set up under impugned Act for adjudication involve questions of interpretation and applicability of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 311 in quite a large number of cases - These questions require for their determination not only judicial approach but also knowledge and expertise in this particular branch of constitutional law - It is necessary that those who adjudicate upon these questions should have same modicum of legal training and judicial experience because we find that some of these questions are so difficult and complex that they baffle the minds of even trained judges in High Courts and the Supreme Court – Held, Court would like to add that it would be open to either party appearing before a Single Member to suggest to Member hearing the matter that it should go to a bench of two Members - Member should ordinarily allow matter to go to a bench of two Members when so requested - This would sufficiently protect the interests of the claimants and even of the administrative system whose litigations may be before Single Member for disposal -To make a distinction between Judicial Member and Administrative Member functioning under sub-section Section 5 of Act may not be appropriate and therefore Court have not been able to accept the approach suggested by observation made in two-Judge Bench case that no provision was cited to them that a Single Member could hear cases laid before Tribunal led to conclusion that judicial business of Administrative Tribunal was intended to be carried by a bench of two Members - Virus of sub-section has not been under challenge and, therefore, both provisions in Section 5 have to be construed keeping legislative intention in view - Court are of view that what Court have indicated above brings out the true legislative intention and prescription in sub-section (2) and the exemption in sub-section are rationalized - Now in instant case we have been told that subsequent to decision of Tribunal there has been a letter from Director of Central Soil Salinity Research Institute that there is no scope for the appellant to be fitted into that Instituted to which the appellant has been transferred by the impugned order - It has been further pointed out by the counsel for the appellant that he had undertaken certain research which was halfway through prior to the transfer and the seeds upon which he had carried his research would not have germinating capacity beyond the end of May this year - Therefore, he suggested that we should dispose of the matter on merit - Counsel for the respondent is not available before us on account of the fact that we had indicated to the bar in the afternoon today that Board before us would be discharged on account of what we thought was a long matter into which we had been drawn in – That however has collapsed and respondents counsel cannot be found fault with for not being present in court - Court are also not prepared to make any order behind her back - Appeal is disposed of
ORDER
1. Special leave granted.
2. This matter has two aspects involved in it - firstly, the question as to whether a single member of the Central Administrative Tribunal set up under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, has jurisdiction to dispose of matters coming before the Tribunal under the Act - a question which has been referred by a two-Judge Bench to a larger Bench and the second, a controversy between the parties which centres round the order of transfer of the appellant. We do not propose to finally dispose of the second aspect and would leave it to the Tribunal to deal with it in the matter which we shall presently indicate.
3. Turning to the first aspect, it would be necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 5 deals with composition of the Tribunal and benches thereof. Section 5(1), (2) and (6) provide :
"5. (1) Each Tribunal shall consist of a Chairman and such number of Vice-Chairman (and Judicial and Administrative Members) as the appropriate Government may deem fit and, subject to the other provisions of this Act, the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal may be exercised by Benches thereof.
(2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Bench shall consist of one Judicial Member and one Administrative Member.
* * *
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section, it shall be competent for the Chairman or any other Member authorised by the Chairman in this behalf to function as (a Bench) consisting of a single Member and exercise the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal in respect of such classes of cases or such matters pertaining to such classes of cases as the Chairman may by general or special order specify :
Provided that if at any stage of the hearing of any such case or matter it appears to the Chairman or such Member that the case or matter is of such a nature that it ought to be heard by a Bench consisting of (two Members) the case or matter may be transferred by the Chairman or, as the case may be, referred to him for transfer to, such Bench as the Chairman may deem fit."
4. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Amulya Chandra Kalita v. Union of India ((1991) 1 SCC 181 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 145 : 1990 (1) JT 558) dealt with the dispute where a claim had been disposed by a Single Administrative Member. This Court in that case referred to sub-section (2) of Section 5 and the observations made by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of S. P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India ((1987) 1 SCC 124 : (1987) 2 ATC 82 : AIR 1987 SC 386 : (1987) 1 SCR 435) and indicated that the scheme of statute was that cases should be heard by a Bench of two Members. From what has been said in the judgment, it appears that sub-section (6) of Section 5 was not brought to the notice of the Court.
5. Undoubtedly in Sampath Kumar case ((1987) 1 SCC 124 : (1987) 2 ATC 82 : AIR 1987 SC 386 : (1987) 1 SCR 435) this Court has clearly indicated that the jurisdiction of the High Court had been transferred to the Tribunal and, therefore, the nature of the business transacted by the Tribunal was judicial out and out. Referring to this aspect, Chief Justice Bhagwati has said : (SCC p. 131, para 5)
"It is necessary to bear in mind that service matters which are removed from the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and entrusted to the Administrative Tribunal set up under the impugned Act for adjudication involve questions of interpretation and applicability of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 311 in quite a large number of cases. These questions require for their determination not only judicial approach but also knowledge and expertise in this particular branch of constitutional law. It is necessary that those who adjudicate upon these questions should have same modicum of legal training and judicial experience because we find that some of these questions are so di
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
