Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1
PETITIONER:
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
CHHAYA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/04/1999
BENCH:
S.L.Goyal
JUDGMENT:
DER
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 Chairman,
who is otherwise a Judicial Member, can act as an
Administrative Member also. The said provision reads as
follwos:-
(4) Notwithstanding anything
(a) may, in addition to discharging the
functions of the Judicial Member or the
Administrative Member of the Bench to which he is
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 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 on that Bench as an
Administrative Member, but certainly not as a Judicial
Member. The same will be 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.
The special leave petition is dismissed.
REPORTABLE.