Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. This matter is registered by the High Court, suo motu, and is treated as a petition under the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and in exercise of the power of superintendence in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in re some Tribunals and Courts.

2. The substance of this suo motu proceeding is the fact that the work of the judicial officers posted on transfer to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals, Family Courts and as Special Judges (NDPS Act Cases) quite often get delayed, awaiting “notifications” by the Government of Kerala. The situation needs consideration of the impact of the relevant laws on the jurisdictional issue in relation to such tribunals and courts in re their constitution.

3. Heard Sri. Noble Mathew, learned Senior Government Pleader. He has taken pains to bring to the notice of this Court, the relevant statutory provisions and notifications. The assistance of the Registry has also gone into making available the relevant papers and particulars, including facts reflected in the Synopsis, as to the situation that occurred following the General Transfers of Judicial Officers in 2012 and 2013.

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals

4. Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, hereinafter referred to as the “1988 Act”, provides for Claims Tribunals. Sub-section 1 of that section enjoins that a State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Claims Tribunals for such area as may be specified in the notification for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving different situations stated therein. Subsection 2 provides that a Claims Tribunal shall consist of such number of members as the State Government may think fit to appoint and where it consists of two or more members, one of them shall be appointed as the Chairman thereof. Sub-section 3 of Section 165 provides that a person shall not be qualified for appointment as a member of a Claims Tribunal unless he is, or has been, a Judge of a High Court, or is, or has been, a District Judge. Sub-section 4 provides that where two or more Claims Tribunals are constituted for any area, the State Government may, by general or special order, regulate distribution of business among them. These provisions in Section 165 of 1988 Act are in pari materia with the provisions in Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, “1939 Act”, for short, which deals with the constitution of Claims Tribunals, subject only to the difference that a person who is qualified for appointment as a District Judge is also brought in among those qualified for appointment as a member of a Claims Tribunal under the 1988 Act as can be seen from Section 165(3)(c) of that Act.

5. Section 217 of the 1988 Act which repealed the 1939 Act saved, among other things, any notification issued or any appointment made under the 1939 Act, and in force immediately before such commencement so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of the 1988 Act and such notifications issued or appointments made under the 1939 Act are deemed to have been issued or made under the 1988 Act.

6. As per notifications, including, G.O.No.(P)96/PW dated 21.4.1975 published as S.R.O.No.412/75 and G.O. (P).No.54/78/W&T dated 14.6.1978 published as S.R.O.No.569/78, the Government of Kerala constituted Claims Tribunals under the 1939 Act. The first among the aforenoted ones was modified and the second one superseded as per G.O.(P). No.60/W&T dated 23rd June, 1979. All those notifications constituted Claims Tribunals for such areas as were specified in those notifications and it was ordered that each Claims Tribunal shall consist of a single member in the cadre of a District Judge. After the 1988 Act came into force on 1st July, 1989, Government issued G.O.Ms.No.112/89/Home dated 6.9.1989 sanctioning the establishment of 14 courts in various parts of the State, including a Claims Tri