Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 – ss. 5, 24 and 25 – Chairman of the Tribunal, sitting singly and exercising his power to transfer proceedings from one Bench to another, stayed proceedings in an Original Application pending before a two member Bench and rendered interim orders passed by that Bench inoperative – Sustainability of – Held: Chairman sitting singly, cannot nullify the orders passed by a larger Bench – Chairman, like the Chief Justice of the Higher Courts or the Chief Judge of subordinate courts, may be higher in order of protocol and may have additional administrative duties and responsibilities, however, the Chairman, acting judicially, is equal to any other Member – Chairman, being one amongst equals, the order of the Chairman of the tribunal staying proceedings before the two member Bench was without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law.
Judicial Propriety – Norms of – Held: Judicial propriety and decorum demands that a judicial order, ad interim, interim or final be vacated, varied, modified, recalled or reviewed by a Bench of coordinate strength or larger strength or a higher forum, but not a smaller Bench of lesser strength, except in cases where such authority to a lower forum and/or smaller Bench is expressly conferred or implicit in the order sought to be vacated, varied, modified, recalled or reviewed.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The Chairman of the Tribunal, sitting singly and exercising his power under Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to transfer proceedings from one Bench to another, could not have stayed proceedings before a two member Bench and rendered interim orders passed by that Bench inoperative. [Para 40][875-E-F]
2. The reference by counsel for the appellant to the Preamble of the Act is of no relevance. The respondent no.1 approached the tribunal for redressal of his grievances. His case was heard by a Division Bench and a reasoned interim order was passed. The preamble, which states the aims and objects of the Act is of no assistance to the appellant, as it does not lend support to appellant’s contention that the Chairman of the tribunal sitting singly could have stayed further proceedings before a Division Bench. The reliance placed on the Preamble is misconceived. [Para 47][876-G-H; 877-A-B]
3.1 Section 5 provides that a Tribunal is to consist of a Chairman and such number of judicial and administrative members as the appropriate Government may deem fit and, subject to the other provisions of the Act, the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal may be exercised by the Benches thereof. Sub-section 2 provides that a Bench is to consist of one Judicial Member and one Administrative Member. This, however, is subject to the other provisions of the said Act. The Chairman of the Tribunal is an entity distinct from the Tribunal and exercises administrative powers and such other powers as are expressly conferred on him under the Act. Section 5(4)(a) of the Act empowers the Chairman to discharge in addition to the functions of the Judicial Member or the Administrative Member, of the Bench to which he is appointed, the functions of the Judicial Member or the Administrative Member of any other Bench. [Paras 49, 50][879-E-G]
3.2 Section 5(4)(b) empowers the Chairman to transfer a Member from one Bench to another Bench, and Section 5(4)(c) enables the Chairman to authorize the Judicial Member or the Administrative Member of one Bench to discharge the duties and functions of Judicial Member or Administrative Member, as the case may be, of any other Bench. The Chairman can also constitute Benches of more than two Members having regard to the nature of the cases involved, by issuance of general or special orders. Sub-section (6) of Section 5 empowers the Chairman or any other Member authorized by the Chairman to sit singly to exercise jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal only in respect of such classes of cases or such matters pertaining to such classes of cases as the Chairman might, by general or special orders specify. The aforesaid provision does not enable the Chairman sitting singly to nullify orders passed by a larger Bench. [Paras 51, 55][879-G-H; 880-A-B, F]
3.3 The proviso to Section 5(c) of the Act states that if at any stage of hearing of any such case or matter it appears to the Chairman or the Member functioning singly 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. [Para 53][880-C-D]
4.1 Section 24 of the Act limits the power to pass interim order whether by way of injunction, stay or otherwise by imposing conditions on the exercise of such power. No interim order is to be made unless copies of the application along with documents in support of the plea for interim order are furnished to the party against whom such application is made and opportunity to be heard is given to such party. The said condition can only be dispensed with in exceptional cases, if the Tribunal is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that it is necessary to pass an interim order for preventing any loss to the applicant which cannot adequately be compensated in money. The interim order, in such case is to be of maximum duration of fourteen days unless the requirements of sub-sections (a) and (b) are complied with, before the expiry of fourteen days and the interim order is extended. [Paras 56, 57][880-G-H; 881-A-B]
4.2 The power under Section 25 of the Act to transfer cases from one Bench to another is essentially an administrative power of the Chairman of CAT. Such power is to be exercised by the Chairman on his own motion or on the application of any of the parties after notice to the parties, and after hearing such of them as he may desire to be heard. The Chairman may, on his motion, transfer any case pending before one Bench to another without notice. A careful reading of Section 25 of the Act makes it clear that the Chairman deciding the question of whether a matter should be transferred from one Bench to another cannot grant interim stay of proceedings, their being no power conferred on the Chairman under the said section to pass such interim stay. Power under Section 24 to grant interim orders has been conferred on the Tribunal, and/or in other words, a Bench of the Tribunal in seisin of proceedings in respect of which the Bench is entitled to exercise the jurisdiction and powers of the Tribunal. [Paras 58, 59, 60][881-C-E]
4.3 A Tribunal created under the Act as also its Chairman derives its powers from the Act and can only exercise such powers as are conferred by the Act. The Chairman of the Tribunal exercising its power under Section 25 of the Act does not function as a Tribunal. The Chairman of CAT does not have power under Section 25 to pass any interim order of stay of proceedings pending before a Bench of the Tribunal. [Para 61][881-F-G]
4.4 A careful reading of the provisions of the Administrative Tribunal Act and in particular Sections 14 and 15 thereof in juxtaposition with Article 323A of the Constitution leaves no manner of doubt that an Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Act to give effect to Article 323A of the Constitution exercises all the jurisdiction powers and authority exercisable by all the Courts before commencement of the Act and has all the attributes of a Court of law except that it is not bound by the strict rules of procedure embodied in the Civil Procedure Code or the strict rules of evidence prescribed by the Evidence Act. All norms of judicial propriety and judicial discipline apply as much to the Tribunal as to Courts including the High Court. [Para 62][881-GH; 882-A-B]
4.5 A judicial order passed by a Tribunal is binding on all concerned, including the tribunal itself on its administrative side, unless set aside or modified by a higher forum in exercise of appellate or revisional powers. In no circumstances, can a judicial order of a Bench of the Tribunal be nullified or rendered nugatory by its Chairman. [Para 63][882-C]
4.6 In view of Section 12 of the Act, the Chairman of the Tribunal can only exercise financial and administrative powers over the Benches as may be vested under the Rules. The Chairman may thus, constitute Benches, shift members from one Bench to another, constitute Single Benches, Division Benches and even larger Benches, allocate business to the Benches and even transfer cases from one Bench to the other, but having done so he cannot interfere with the functioning of the Benches or tinker with its orders by passing interim orders in a transfer petition. [Para 64][882-D-E]
4.7 In any case, judicial decorum and propriety demands that a judicial order, ad interim, interim or final be vacated, varied, modified, recalled or reviewed by a Bench of coordinate strength or larger strength or a higher forum, but not a smaller Bench of lesser strength, except in cases where such authority to a lower forum and/or smaller Bench is expressly conferred or implicit in the order sought to be vacated, varied, modified, recalled or reviewed. [Para 65][882-E-F]
4.8 The interim order passed by a Court does not operate as a precedent and the law declared by the Supreme Court with regard to the precedential value of judgments of Benches of larger strength may not operate as a binding precedent in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. The judgments referred to in the preceding paragraphs lay down the norms of judicial decorum and propriety which give precedence to Benches of higher strength. There is no reason at all why the same principles should not apply even to interim orders in pending proceedings. [Para 67][883-B-C]
4.9 An interim order passed by a court, on consideration of the prima facie case made out by an applicant, should ordinarily have been vacated by a Bench of coordinate strength after giving open notice to the applicant. If the Chairman was of the considered opinion that there was urgency in the application for vacating the interim order, the Chairman ought to have assigned the application for vacating and/or vacation of the interim order to a Bench of two or more Members to consider whether the interim order should continue or be vacated. The Chairman could also have exercised his power to suo motu transfer the proceedings to another Bench without prior notice. The order of stay of the proceedings before the Nainital Bench is without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law. [Para 68][883-D-E]
4.10 The Division Bench rightly allowed the writ petition. The Chairman, like the Chief Justice of the Higher Courts or the Chief Judge of subordinate courts, may be higher in order of protocol and may have additional administrative duties and responsibilities. However, the Chairman, acting judicially, is equal to any other Member. The Chairman, being one amongst equals, the order of the Chairman of CAT staying proceedings before the two member Bench was without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law. The cost quantified at Rs. 25,000/- directed to be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within the stipulated period. [Paras 73, 74][885-D-E]
Munna Lal Karosia v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (2012) 12 SCC 255; Association of Synthetic Fibre Industries v. Apollo Tyres Limited and Others (2010) 13 SCC 735 - distinguished.
Dr. Mahabal Ram v. Indian Council of Agricultural Research and others (1994) 2 SCC 401; L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors. (1997) 3 SCC 261 : [1997] 2 SCR 1186; Ramrameshwari Devi and Ors. v. Nirmala Devi & Ors. (2011) 8 SCC 249 : [2011] 8 SCR 992; Kishorbhai Gandubhai Pethani v. State of Gujarat & Anr. (2014) 13 SCC 539 : [2013] 10 SCR 208; Kishore Samrite v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2013)
2 SCC 398 : [2012] 9 SCR 733; Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India (2007) 8 SCC 449 : [2007] 9 SCR 112; Vatticherukuru Village Panchayat v. Nori Venkatarama Deekshithulu and Ors. (1991) Supp. 2 SCC 228 : [1991] 2 SCR 531; Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das (1994) 4 SCC 225 : [1994] 1 Suppl. SCR 136; Union of India and Anr. v. K. S. Subramanian (1976) 3 SCC 677 : [1977] 1 SCR 87; Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Mumbai Shramik Sangha & Ors. (2001) 4 SCC 448 : [2001] 3 SCR 208 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.