KAN SINGH, J.—Shri Laxmi Narain Mishra, who is opposing certain proceedings instituted against him under sec. 110 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1930 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) before the District Judge, Alwar, constituting the Claims Tribunal under the Act, moves this Court for transferring the proceedings to another Claims Tribunal and invokes the powers of this Court under sec. 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The transfer was sought principally on two grounds: One on account of his having an apprehension against Shri Sohanraj Kothari, District Judge, on the basis of certain orders passed by him from time to time, that the petitioner would not get justice from Shri Kothari. The other one was of hardship caused to the petitioner as no advocate at Alwar was accepting any brief for him, as Shri Kailash Narain Gupta, the applicant before the Claims Tribunal as also his father were advocates practising at Alwar.

3. The first ground is no longer available as Shri Kothari has since been transferred from Alwar to another place and Shri M.C. Jain is at present the District Judge at Alwar.

4. The question that confronts the petitioner here at the very outset is whether a District Judge appointed as a Claims Tribunal under the Act is a court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of sec. 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There can be no controversy regarding even a Claims Tribunal being subordinate to the High Court as appeals lie to the High Court under sec.110-D of the Act. Apart from this, there is Art.227 of the Constitution under which the High Court exercises the powers of superintendence over all Tribunals functioning in the State. The hub of the matter, however, is whether the Claims Tribunal is a court as to entitle the petitioner to invoke the powers of this Court under sec. 24, C. P. C.

5. The learned counsel on other side have placed a number of cases before me but they disclose a divergence of judicial opinion. In none of the cases, however, the question has been considered whether a Claims Tribunal under the Act is a court for the purposes of sec. 24, C.P.C. I will have occasion to refer to the various decided cases hereinafter.

6. In the growing complexities of the present day life and the administration, the dividing line between the functions of the regularly constituted courts as such and the administrative bodies dealing with rights and obligations of the citizen is becoming thinner and thinner. Under the system of our laws even judicial Tribunals may exercise both judicial and administrative powers. Likewise, administrative bodies may enjoy not only administrative powers but also such powers as are exercisable by the regularly constituted courts. The term "Court" has not been defined by statute though inclusive definitions are available in several of them. One thing is, however, conspicuous and it is that the courts belong to the judicial hierarchy and constitute the countrys judiciary as distinct from the executive or legislative branches of the State. There are nevertheless other administrative bodies or functionaries who, though outside the judicial hierarchy, are yet acting like courts for certain purposes. Whether a person or a body dealing with the rights and obligations of a citizen is a court or a Tribunal will by and large depend on the nature of functions assigned to such person or body by the statute. The problem will thus be one of ascertainment of the nature of the functions. It is well settled that judicial functions involve the decision of rights and liabilities and an inquiry and investigation into facts is a material part of the function. I am not concerned with the administrative functions in which the rights and obligations of a citizen are not determined or dealt with.

7. Now, a Claims Tribunal functioning under the Act deals very much with the rights and obligations of the citizens. Prior to the enactment of the fascicule of sec. 110 A and onwards, the liability of owners o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document