IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak And The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi RVW 376 of 2024 IA NO: CAN 3 of 2024 Union of India & Ors.

Vs.

Shri Bachan Pandey In W.P.C.T 221 of 2024 For the Review Applicants : Mr. Asok Kumar Chakraborty, Ld. A.S. G Mr. D.N. Ray, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Sayani Roy Chowdhury, Adv.

For writ petitioner / : Mr. Atarup Banerjee, Adv.

Union of India Mrs. Sarda Sha, Adv.

Hearing Concluded on : February 06, 2025 Judgement on : April 07, 2025 DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-

1. Review applicant has sought review of order dated November 11, 2024 passed in WPCT 221 of 2024.

2. Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the review applicant has submitted that, the review applicant is the Deputy Registrar of Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench. He has submitted that, the review applicant is aggrieved by the order under review since, the order under review holds that, a subha karmakar subha karmakar Date: 2025.04.07 Single Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal is not competent to hear and dispose of an original proceeding filed before Central Administrative Tribunal on merits.

3. Learned Additional Solicitor General has relied upon 2005 Volume 4 Supreme Court Cases 741 (Board of Control for Cricket in India and Another vs. Netaji Cricket Club and Others) and contended that, the review applicant is entitled to seek review of the judgment and order under review. He has contended that there is a mistake on the part of the Court in the judgment and order under review which requires correction. He has also contended that, the review applicant is a party aggrieved by the judgment and order under review and therefore is entitled to file and maintain the review application.

4. Learned Additional Solicitor General has referred to Section 5(6) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and Rule 18 (c) as well as Appendix I, Schedule Serial No. 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Rules of Practice, 1993 and contended that, an original application can be posted before a Single Member Bench and that, such Single Member Bench can deal with the same in accordance with the procedure prescribed therein.

5. Learned Additional Solicitor General has submitted that, Bench is defined in Section 3 (e) while a Member is defined in Section 3 (i–a) of the Act of 1985. He has contended that a member means both Judicial and Administrative of a Tribunal and it includes the Chairman. Consequently, according to him, a Single Member Bench can decide an original application on merits even if such Single Member Bench is an Administrative member of the Tribunal.

6. Learned Additional Solicitor General has contended that, the earlier two Division Benches of the Calcutta High Court did not consider the Rules of 1993 or the ratio of the judgment laid down in 1997 Volume 3 Supreme Court Cases 261 (L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India and Others) in their correct perspective. He has referred to paragraphs 25, 26 and 99 thereof in particular.

7. Learned Additional Solicitor General has drawn the attention of the Court to a decision of the Gujarat High Court reported at 2013 GUJ HC 17461 (Ravjibhai Thakor vs. Union of India) and submitted that, the issue as to whether an Administrative Member can decide an original application on merits sitting singly was answered by the Gujarat High Court by holding that the Administrative Member cannot do so. Gujarat High Court had relied upon 2002 Volume 10 SCC 338 (M.P vs. B.R. Thakare and Ors.). He has contended that the view of the Gujarat High Court was incorrect and that a Special Leave Petition is pending directed against Ravjibhai Thakor (supra)

8. Learned Additional Solicitor General has contended that, when B.R. Thakare and Ors. (supra) was pronounced, the Rules of 1995 were not in place and at least the same were not taken into consideration. Therefore, the issues that have fallen for consideration were not answered by B.R.