V.K. MAJOTRAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

                            V.K. MAJOTRA                                     A
                                   V.

                    UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

                         SEPTEMBER 9, 2003

               [R.C. LAHOTI AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.]                             B
      Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985-Section 6--Appointment ofVice-
Chairman-Qualification for-Appointment of members of administrative
service as Vice-Chairman-Held justified-Service Law.

      Constitution of India-Article 226-High Court-Jurisdiction of-          C
High Court issuing directions in respect of matters not covered by the
pleadings of the parties before it-Held, not justified-High Court should
restrict itself to the pleadings.

     Principles of Natural Justice-Notice to the affected party-High         D
Court issuing directions affecting third party interests-Held, notice must
be given to the affected parties before issuance of the such directions-
Constitution of1ndia-Artic/e 226.

     Section 6 (2) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 lays down
the qualification for appointment of the Vice-Chairman of the Central        E
Administrative Tribunal. Under Section 6 (2) (a) a person who is or
has been or who possesses the qualification to become a Judge of a High
Court can be appointed as the Vice-Chairman of the Central
Administrative Tribunal. Under Section 6(2)(b) (bb) and (c), members
of the administrative service too can be appointed as the Vice-              F
Chairman. The explanation deals with the computation of work
experience in cases of civil servants.

     S filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the panel
prepared for the post of Vice-Chairman in various branches of the            G
Central Administrative Tribunal. He also challenged the constitutional
validity of the explanation to Section 6 of the Administrative Tribunal
Act.

      Disposing of the writ petition, the High Court did not decide the
inter se claims of the parties to the writ petition. Instead, the High · H
                                   483
    484                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A Court disposed of the writ petition holding that only a sitting or retired
    Judge of the High Court or an advocate having qualifications for being
    appointed as a High Court Judge could be appointed as Vice-Chairman
    of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Government was directed
    to prepare the impugned panel and all future panels by considering
B   only the persons referred to in Section 6(2)(a) of the Administrative
    Tribunals Act. The High Court further observed that even in the other
    Tribunals, such as CEGAT, Board of Revenue, Income Tax Appellate
    Tribunal etc., only persons having legal background should be appointed
    as the presiding officer. In case of a single member bench, the member
    should be from legal background. The copies of the judgment were
C   directed to be sent to various heads of the concerned departments of
    Union of India, the Chief Secretary of U.P. and to the Chairman of
    CAT for compliance.

          The order of the High Court was challenged by the aggrieved
D parties before this Court. The appellants contended that the High
    Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing the impugned directions
    as no party had raised that point before the High Court. The appellants
    also contended that the High Court has not decided the main dispute
    in respect of which the writ petition was filed.
E
        Allowing the appeals and remitting the matter back to the High
    Court for adjudication of the dispute raised in the writ petition, the
    Court

F         HELD : I.I. The High Court has over stepped its jurisdiction in
    giving a direction beyond the pleadings or the points raised by the
    parties during the course of the arguments. The writ courts would be
    well advised to decide the petitions on the points raised in the petition
    and if in a rare case keeping in view the facts and circumstances of
    the case any additional points are to be raised then the concerned and
G   affected parties should be put to the notice on the additional points to
    satisfy the principles of natural justice. Parties cannot be taken by
    surprise. (489-E, F)

          1.2. The point on which the writ petition has been disposed of was
H not raised by the parties in their pleadings. The point raised in the writ
                       v. K. MAJOTRA V. U.0.l.                       485

petition was neither adverted to not adjudicated upon by the High            A
Court. The parties were not at issue on the point decided by the High
Court. The vires of Section 6 (2)(b)(bb) and (c) of the Administrative
Tribunal Act, 1985 were not challenged in the writ petition. The effect of
the direction issued by the High Court that henceforth the appointment
to the post of Vice-Chairman be made only from amongst the sitting or        B
retired High Court Judge or an advocate qualified to be appointed as the
Judge of the High Court would be that Section 6(2)(b)(bb) and (c) of the
Administrative Tribunal Act providing for recruitment to the post of
Vice-Chairman from amongst the administrative services have been put
at naught/obliterated from the statute book without striking them down       C
as no appointment from amongst the categories mentioned in clauses (b)
(bb) and (c) could not be made. So long as Section 6(2)(b)(bb) and (c)
remains on the statute book such a direction could not be issued by the
High Court. [489-8-E)

     2. The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing directions       D
to the authorities that henceforth the appointment to the post of
presiding officer ofvarious other Tribunals such as CEGAT, Board of
Revenue, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal etc. should be from amongst
the judicial members alone. Such a finding could not be recorded
without appropriate pleadings and notifying the concerned and affected       E
parties. [489-G, H, 490-AJ

     3. The findings recorded by the High Court run contrary to the
law laid down by this Court. This Court has held that it is not desirable
to stop the appointment of members of administrative services as
administrative members to the Central Administrative Tribunal. Rather        F
the judicious mix of Judicial Members and those with grass-root
experience would serve the purpose better for which the Central
Administrative Tribunals were created. A Selection Committee which
was headed by a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court would ensure that
Administrative Members would be chosen from amongst those who                G
had the requisite background to deal with the cases coming up before
the Central Administrative Tribunal. [494-D-GJ

     S.P. Sampath v. Union of India & Ors., [1987) 1 SCC 124 and
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 sec 261, relied upon.           H
    486                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A        CIVIL APPELLATE JUR1SDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4106 of
    2002.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 25.2.2002 of the Allahabad High
    Court in C.M. W.P. No. 8248 of 2002.

B                                       WITH

          C.A. Nos. 4107, 4404/2002, W.P. (C) No. 398 of2002.

          Raju Ramachandran, Additional Solicitor General, K.T.S. Tulsi,
C Rakesh Dwivedi, Vikash Pahwa, Rishi Malhotra, Prem Malhotra, H.M.
    Singh, Anil Hooda, Kaushal Yadav, Dr. Suman! Bharadwaj, Mrs. Mridula
    Ray Bharadwaj, Ms. M. Rajvanshi, D.K. Singh, P. Parmeswaran,
    Ms. Nisha Bagchi, P. Manish, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Amit Bose, B.P.
    Singh, M.A. Chinnasamy, Ms. Niranjana Singh and Abhishek Chaudhary
    for the appearing parties.
D
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          BHAN, J. : This judgment shall dispose of Civil Appeal No. 4107
    of 2002, Civil Appeal No. 4404 of 2002 impugning the final order dated
    9th April, 2002 passed by the High Court of Allahabad, Civil Appeal
E   No. 4106 is directed against the interim order dated 25th February, 2002
    passed in the writ petition while it was pending in the High Court and Writ
    Petition (C) No. 398 of 2002 filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of
    India by Shri Gopal Singh, Administrative Member, Central Administrative
    Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, at Jodhpur, challenging the empaneling of Shri
F   V.K. Majotra, respondent No. 5 on the ground that he was not qualified
    to be chosen as Vice-Chairman of Central Administrative Tribunal. The
    point raised in all the cases being common, the same are taken up together
    for disposal.

          The facts are:
G
          Shambhu Dayal, appellant in Civil Appeal No. 4107 of 2002 filed
    Writ Petition No. 8248 of2002 in the High Court of Allahabad challenging
    the panel prepared for the post of Vice-Chairman in various branches of
    the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal')
H   in India and seeking for preparation of a fresh panel. Empanelment of V .K.
                  v. K. MAJOTRA V. U.0.1. [BHAN, J.]                      487

Majotra, respondent No. 5, was challenged on the ground that he was not           A
qualified to be chosen for the post of Vice-Chainnan to the Tribunal. He
also impugned the constitutional validity of Explanation to Section 6 of
the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')
being ultra vires of the Constitution of India and inoperative.

      By an interim order dated 25th February, 2002 the High Court being
                                                                                  B
prima facie of the opinion that only a sitting or retired High Court Judge
or an advocate who is qualified for appointment as a High Court Judge
could be appointed as Vice-Chairman of the Tribunal issued a direction
that in the panel already prepared for appointment of Vice-Chainnan of
various Branches of the Tribunal and in future panels also only the person        C
referred to'Section 6 (2) (a) of the Act could be appointed as the Vice-
Chairman of the Tribunal.

     Aggrieved against the interim order of 25th February, 2002 Mr. V.K.
Majotra filed Civil Appeal No. 4106 of 2002 in which leave was granted            D
and operation of the interim order dated 25th February, 2002 passed by
the High Court was stayed.

      The writ petition was taken up for final disposal by the High Court
on 9th April, 2002. Instead of disposing of the writ petition on the pleas        E
raised in the writ petition or the points raised by the counsel for the parties
during the course of the arguments, the High Court going completely off
the tangent went on to hold that the Vice-Chainnan of the Tribunal should
be from a legal background and can only be a sitting or retired High Court
Judge or an advocate who is qualified for appointment as a High Court
Judge. It was held that in the instant panel prepared by the Government           F
and in all future panels only the person referred to in Section 6 (2)(a) of
the Act can be appointed as the Vice-Chainnan of the various benches of
the Tribunal. It was also observed that there are number of Tribunals in
the country like CEGA T, Board of Revenue, Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal etc., which should have persons from a legal background as the           G
presiding Judge to maintain the confidence of the public. That the senior
member of every Tribunal must be a person with a legal background as
presiding officer of the Tribunal which would ensure compliance of the
mandate of Article 50 of the Constitution of India. A direction was issued
to the authorities including the Government to take speedy steps to ensure        H
    488                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A compliance of the judgment and appoint as presiding Judge of every
    Tribunal a person with a legal background so that the Tribunal may be
    independent and inspire confidence of the public. If it is a single member
    bench, then the person must be from a legal background. Registrar General
    of the High Court was directed to send copies of the judgment to the
B   Secretary, Law Department, Union of India, the secretary Personnel and
    Appointment Department, Union of India, the Cabinet Secretary of Union
    of India and to the Chief Secretary of the U.P. Government as also to the
    Chairman of the CAT and other appropriate authorities for due compliance.

          Appeals have been filed by the Union of India, writ petitioner
C Shambhu Dayal as well as V.K. Majotra, whose appointment was challenged
  in the writ petition taking strong exception to the manner in which the
  petition has been disposed of and the decision arrived at by the High Court.
  It is contended that point on which the writ petition was disposed of was
  neither raised in the pleadings nor argued before the High Court by any
D of the parties to the writ petition; that point raised in the writ petition has
  neither been adverted to or adjudicated upon by the High Court and that
  the High Court was wrong in adopting such an approach. As to whether
  a person not having judicial experience could be appointed as Vice-
  Chairman of the Tribunal was not questioned in the writ petition. Similarly,
E vires of Section 6(2) (b) (bb) and (c) were not challenged. High Court
  without striking down the provisions of Section 6 (2) (b) (bb) and (c) has
  obliterated them from the statute book by holding that henceforth the
  appointment to the post of Vice-Chairman be made only from amongst the
  persons mentioned in Section 6 (2) (a) of the Act. It is further contended
F that the High Court did not stop at giving direction that the Vice-Chairn1an
  of CAT should be from amongst the persons having judicial training but
  went a step ahead to hold that CEGA T, Board of Revenue, Income Tax
  Appellate Tribunal etc., which were not even remotely connected to the
  dispute in the writ petition should also be manned by persons having
  judicial training and no administrative member should be appointed as the
G presiding officer of such a Tribunal. No notice had been issued to the
  concerned or the affected parties. Such a direction is totally unsustainable
  in law being in violation of principles oli natural justice' if not anything
  more. Lastly, it was contended that the impugned judgment of the High
  Court runs contrary to the view taken by this Court and therefore bad in
H law.
                  V. K. MAJOTRA v. U.0.1. [BHAN, J.]                      489
      Counsel for the parties have been heard at length.                          A
      We have perused the pleadings of the writ petition and the counter
affidavits filed by the respondents before the High Court. Counsel for the
parties are right in submitting that the point on which the writ petition has
been disposed of was not raised by the parties in their pleadings. The parties    B
were not at issue on the point decided by the High Court. Counsel for the
parties are also right in contending that the point raised in the writ petition
was neither adverted to nor adjudicated upon by the High Court. It is also
correct that vires of Section 6(2) (b) (bb) and (c) of the Act were not
challenged in the writ petition. The effect of the direction issued by the        C
High Court that henceforth the appointment to the post of Vice-Chairman
be made only from amongst the sitting or retired High Court Judge or an
advocate qualified to be appointed as a Judge of the High Court would
be that Sections 6 (2) (b) (bb) and (c) of the Act providing for recruitment
to the post of Vice-Chairman from amongst the administrative services
have been put at naught/obliterated from the statute book without striking        D
them down as no appointment from amongst the categories mentioned in
clauses (b) (bb) and (c) could now be made. So long as Section 6 (2)(b)(bb)
and (c) remains on the statute book such a direction could not be issued
by the High Court. With respect to the learned Judges of the High Court
we would say that the learned Judges have over stepped their jurisdiction         E
in giving a direction beyond the pleadings or the points raised by the
parties during the course of the arguments. The writ courts would be well
advised to decide the petitions on the points raised in the petition and if
in a rare case keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case any
additional points are to be raised then the concerned and affected parties        F
should be put to the notice on the additional points to satisfy the principles
of natural justice. Parties cannot be taken by surprise. We leave the
discussion here.

      We are also in agreement with the submissions made by the counsel
for the appellants that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing       G
further directions to the Secretary, Law Department, Union of India, the
Secretary Personnel and Appointment Department, Union of India, the
Cabinet Secretary of Union oflndia and to the Chief Secretary of the U.P.
Government as also to the Chairman of the CAT and other appropriate
authorities that henceforth the appointment to the post of presiding officer      H
    490                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A of various other Tribunals such as CEGAT, Board of Revenue, Income Tax
    Appellate Tribunal etc., should be from amongst the judicial members
    alone. Such a finding could not be recorded without appropriate pleadings
    and notifying the concerned and affected parties.

          The relevant provisions of Section 6 read as under:
B
            "6. Qualifications for appointment of Chairman, Vice-Chairman
            or other Members. - (I) A person shall not be qualified for
            appointment as the Chairman unless he -

C           (a)    is, or has been, a Judge of a High Court; or

            (b)    has, for at least two years, held the office of Vice-Chairman.

            (2) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as the Vice-
             Chairman unless he -
D            (a)   is, or has been, or is qualified to be a Judge of a High Court;
                   or

             (b)   has, for at least two years, held the post of a Secretary to
                   the Government of India or any other post under the Central
E                  or a State Government carrying a scale of pay which is not
                   less than that of a Secretary to the Government of India; or

             (bb) has, for at least five years, held the post of an Additional
                  Secretary to the Government of India or any other post under
                  the Central or a State Government carrying a scale of pay
F                 which is not Jess than that of an Additional Secretary to the
                  Government of India; or

             (c)   has, for a period of not less than three years, held office as
                   a Judicial Member or an Administrative Member.
G                         xxx                   xxx

             (6) The Chairman, Vice-Chairman and every other Member of
             Joint Administrative Tribunal shall, subject to the terms of the
             agreement between the participating State Governments published
H            under sub-Section (3) of Section 4, and subject to the provisions
                  v. K. MAJOTRA V. U.0.1. [BHAN, J.)                      491

         of sub-section (7), be appointed by the President after consultation    A
         with the Governors of the concerned States.

         Explanation.- In computing, for the purposes of this Section, the
         period during which a person has held any post under the Central
         or a State Government, there shall be included the period during        B
         which he has held any other post under the Central or a State
         Government (including an office under this Act) carrying the
         same scale of pay as that of the first mentioned post or a higher-
         scale of pay.

         (7) No appointment of a person possessing the qualifications            C
         specified in this Section as the Chairman, a Vice-Chairman or a
         Member shall be made except after consultation with the Chief
         Justice of India."

      Reading of the above provisions make it clear that Chairman can be         D
appointed under Section 6 (1) (a) from amongst the sitting or retired Judges
of the High Court or if he has held the office of Vice-Chairman for two
years. The eligibility for the appointment of Vice-Chairman is provided in
clauses (b) (bb) and (c) of Section 6 (2). Clause (a) provides that
appointment can be made of a person who is or has been or is qualified           E
to be a Judge of a High Court; Clause (b) provides that a person has for
at least two years, held the post of a Secretary to the Government of India
or any other post under the Central or a State Government carrying a scale
of pay which is not less than that of a Secretary to the Government oflndia;
Clause (bb) provides that a person has, for at least five years, held the post   F
of an Additional Secretary to the Government of India or any other post
under the Central or a State Government carrying a scale of pay which is
not less than that of an Additional Secretary to the Government of India;
and Clause (c) provides that a person has, for a period of not less than three
years, held office as a Judicial Member or an Administrative Member.
                                                                                 G
      Administrative Tribunals Act was enacted in the year 1985 by the
Parliament under Article 323-A of the Constitution. Constitutional validity
of this Act was challenged and upheld by the Constitution Bench of this
Court in SP. Sampath v. Union of India & Ors., [1987) l SCC 124. Vires
of the provisions of the Act other than Section 6(1) (c) were upheld. Section    H
    492                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A 6 (I) (c) provided that Secretary to the Government of India could be
    appointed as Chairman of the Tribunal. It was directed that Section 6(1)
    (c) be omitted from the statute. This observation of the Court was accepted
    and Section 6( I)( c) of the Act was later on deleted from the statute. As
    to sub-section (a), (b), (bb) and (c) of Section 6(2) for the appointment of
B   Chairman/Vice-Chairman and other members. from amongst the
    administrative services it was observed (vi.de para 21) in the lead judgment
    of the Ranganath Misra, J.:

             "... We do not want to say anything about Vice-Chairman and
             members dealt with in sub-sections (2), (3) or (3-A) because so
c            far as their selection is concerned, we are of the view that such
             selection when it is not a sitting Judge or retired Judge of a High
             Court should be done by a high-powered committee with a sitting
             Judge of the Supreme Court to be nominated by the Chief Justice
             of India as its Chairman. This will ensure selection of proper and
D            competent people to man these high offices of trust and help to
             build up reputation and acceptability. Once the qualifications
             indicated for appointment of Chairman are adopted and the
             manner of selection of Vice-Chairman and members is followed,
             are inclined to think that the manning of the Tribunal would be
             proper and conducive to appropriate functioning. We do not
E
             propose to strike down the prescriptions containing different
             requirements but would commend to, the Central Government to
             take prompt steps to bring the provisions in accord with what we
             have indicated. We must state that unless the same be done, the
             Constitution of the Tribunal as a substitute of the High Court
F            would be open to challenge. We hasten to add that our judgment
             shall operate prospectively and would not affect appointments
             already made to the offices of Vice-Chairman and member - both
             administrative and judicial."

G        Observations to the same effect were made by Bhagwati, CJ in his
    separate but concurring judgment. It was held that there should be no
    preponderance of administrative members in the Tribunal and the Tribunal
    should consist of one judicial member and one administrative member on
    any bench. That the presence of the administrative member would provide
H   input of practical experience in the functioning of the services. The Bench
                 V. K. MAJOTRA v. U.0.1. [BHAN, J.]                     493

directed that the selection of Vice-Chairman and the other members from         A
the administrative services should be made by a high powered committee
with a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court to be nominated by the Chief
Justice of India which would ensure selection of proper and competent
people to man these high offices of trust and help to build up reputation
and acceptability of the Tribunal.                                              B

     The question as to whether the members of the administrative services
could be appointed as members of the Central Administrative Tribunal or
Vice-Chairman was answered in the affirmative. Vires of Section
6(2)(a)(b)(bb) and (c). were upheld.
                                                                                c
      This question was again considered in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union
of India, [ 1997] 3 SCC 261, by a Seven-Judge Constitution Bench. In this
case as well an argument was raised that the appointment of Administrative
Members to Administrative Tribunals be stopped. The Court observed that
it was difficult to accept such a contention since setting up of these          D
Tribunals is founded on the premise that specialist bodies comprising of
both trained administrators and those with judicial experience would by
virtue of their specialised knowledge be better equipped to dispense speedy
and efficient justice. The Court held:
                                                                                E
               "We are also required to address the issue of the competence
         of those who man the Tribunals and the question of who is to
         exercise administrative supervision over them. It has been urged
         that only those who have had judicial experience should be
         appointed to such Tribunals. In the case of Administrative             F
         Tribunals, it has been pointed out that the Administrative Members
         who have been appointed have little or no experience in adjudicating
         such disputes; the Malimath Committee has noted that at times
         JPS Officers have been appointed to these Tribunals. It is stated
         that in the short tenures that these Administrative Members are
         on the Tribunal, they are unable to attain enough experience in        G
         adjudication and in cases where they do acquire the ability, it is
         invariably on the eve of the expiry of their tenures. For these
         reasons, it has been urged that the appointment of Administrative
         Members to Administrative Tribunals be st:ipped. We find it
         difficult to accept such a contention. It must be remembered that      H
    494                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A            the setting up of these Tribunals is founded on the premise that
             specialist bodies comprising both trained administrators and those
             with judicial experience would, by virtue of their specialised
             knowledge, be better equipped to dispense speedy and efficient
             justice. It was expected that a judicious mix of Judicial members
             and those with grassroots experience would best serve this
B
             purpose. To hold that the Tribunal should consist only of Judicial
             Members would attack the primary basis of the theory pursuant
             to which they have been constituted. Since the Selection Committee
             is now headed by a Judge of the Supreme Court, nominated by
             the Chief Justice of India, we have reason to believe that the
c            Committee would take care to ensure that Administrative Members
             are chosen from amongst those who have some background to
             deal with such cases."

          From the above observations, it is clear that this Court held that it
D was not desirable to stop the appointment of members of administrative
    services as administrative members to the Tribunal. Rather the judicious
    mix of Judicial Members and those with grassroot experience would serve
    the purpose better for which the Tribunals were created. Contention that
    Tribunal should consist only of Judicial members was rejected and it was
E   held that such a direction would attack the primary basis of the theory
    pursuant to which the Tribunals were constituted. It was observed that
    a Selection Committee which was headed by a sitting Judge of the Supreme
    Court would ensure that Administrative Members would be chosen from
    amongst those who had the requisite background to deal with the cases
F   coming up before the Tribunal.

          In view of the observations of this Court in SP. Sampath and
    L. Chandra Kumar cases (supra) the High Court was not right in observing
    that henceforth the appointment of Vice-Chairman should be made from
    amongst the persons mentioned in of Section 6 (2) (a) of the Act alone.
G   The findings recorded by the High Court run contrary to the law laid down
    by this Court.

          For the reasons stated above, the Civil appeals are accepted, the
    interim order dated 25th February, 2002 which merged with the final order
H   dated 9th April, 2002 passed by the High Court are set aside. The stay
                  V. K. MAJOTRA v. U.O.I. [BHAN, J.]                     495
granted by the High Court is vacated. The authorities would be at liberty'       A
to make appointment as per selection made which would of course be
subject to the final result of the writ petition by the High Court.

      Since the High Court did not decide the inter se dispute between writ
petitioner Shri Shambhu Dayal and Shri V.K. Majotra, respondent No. 5            B
in the writ petition, we remit the case back to the High Court for decision
in accordance with law. We would request the High Court to dispose of
the matter at an early date and if possible within four months from the date
of receipt/production of a certified copy of this judgment.

      Since we are not deciding the dispute on merits and remitting the case     C
back to the High Court for appropriate decision we refrain to go into merits
of the dispute in.writ petition No. 398 of2002 and dismiss the same with
liberty to the petitioner to approach the High Court, if so advised.

     Shri D.C. Verma, Respondent No. 4 in the Writ Petition, is a Judicial       D
Member of the Tribunal. Counsel for the parties are agreed that no relief
has been claimed in the writ petition against him and he be deleted from
the array of the parties. Accordingly the name of Shri D.C. Verma be
deleted from the array of the parties in the writ petition. He is not required
to appear before the High Court henceafter.
                                                                                 E
     Appeals are allowed. No costs.

B.K.M.                                                     Appeals allowed.