Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.versusCHHAYA AND ORS.

Citation
1999 INSC 174
Decided
9 April 1999
Disposal
Dismissed

Holding

Section 5(4)(a) only authorises the Chairman to sit on multiple benches in the same capacity (Judicial or Administrative) and does not allow a Judicial Member to act as an Administrative Member or vice‑versa.

Summary

The petitioners challenged a High Court order on the interpretation of Section 5(4)(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, contending that a Chairman who is a Judicial Member could also act as an Administrative Member on another bench. The Supreme Court examined the language of the provision, which allows a Chairman to sit on more than one bench but does not permit a change in his character from Judicial to Administrative or vice‑versa. The Court held that the Chairman may function at multiple benches only in the capacity in which he was appointed, i.e., a Judicial Member remains a Judicial Member even when transferred to another bench. No infirmity was found in the High Court’s order, and the Court suggested early appointments to avoid such issues. Consequently, the special leave petition was dismissed, and the petition was rejected.

Issues considered

  • Whether Section 5(4)(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 permits a Chairman who is a Judicial Member to act as an Administrative Member on another bench

Legislation cited

Subjects

Administrative Tribunals ActSection 5(4)(a)ChairmanJudicial MemberAdministrative MemberBench jurisdictionInterpretation of statuteAppointment

Judgment

A                    STA TE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
                                    v.
                             CHHA YA AND ORS.

                                    APRIL 9, 1999

B                      [B.N. KIRPAL AND V.N. KHARE, JJ.]


           Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 :

           Section 5(4)(a)-Scope of-The Chairman may be a Judicial Member
.C    or an Administrative Member-Under section 5(4)(a) the Chairman can
     function at more than one Benches-Purpose of this provision is to enable
      the Chairman to function at different places when he goes on tour-This
     provision does not enable the Judicial Member to act as an Administrative
     Member or vice versa-Ifthe Chairman is a person who was an Administrative
      Member, then under section 5(4)(a) if he goes to another Bench he can sif
D     on that Bench as an Administrative Member, but certainly not as a Judic(al
     Member-The same is true with regard to the Chairman who is a Judicial
     Member.

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. CCl675/
E 1999.
          From the Judgment and Order dated 13/11/1998 in W.P. 1394/98 of the
     High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, Aurangabad.

           G.B. Sathe for D.M. Nargolkar for the Petitioners.
F          The following Order of the Court was deliyered :
                                                 /'




           Delay condoned.

           Learned counsel for the petitioners refers to Section 5, sub-section (4),
     sub-clause {a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act and submits that the
G    Chairman, who is otherwise a Judicial Member, can act as an Administrative
     Member also. The said provision reads as follows :-

                "(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (l), the
             Chainnan-

H                (a) may, in addition to discharging the functions of the Judicial
                                          574
                                                                                575

--
                                  SifATE v.CHHAYA

              Member or the Administrative Member of the Bench to which he is          A
              appointed, discharge the functions of the Judicial Member or, as the
              case may be, the Administrative Member, of any other Bench."

           In our opinion, the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel is not
     correct. The Chairman may be a Judicial Member or an Administrative Member.
     All that this sub-clause permits is that the Chairman can function at more than   B
     one Benches. This provision obviously had to be included in order to enable
     the Chairman to function at different places when he goes on tour. This
     provision does not enable the Judicial Member to act as an Administrative
     Member or vice versa. If the Chairman is a person who was an Administrative
     Member, then under Section 5(4)(a) if he goes to another Bench he can sit         C
     on that Bench as an Administrative Member, but cer;tainly not as a Judidal
     Member. The same,willbe true with regard to the Chairman who is a Judicial
     Member.

           We do not find any infirmity in the order of the High Court. The :·



-    solution to the problem in hand is to make early appointments.



     T.N.A.
           The special leave petition is dismissed.
                                                                               D


                                                                Petition dismissed.


Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "Administrative Tribunals Act"Sign in to search

For a digitally signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's own website. Only the court can issue one.