2019 (2) TMI 2098 - SC - Indian Laws

Stay on transfer of proceedings from one Bench to another - Whether the Chairman of the Tribunal, sitting singly and exercising his power under Section 25 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, to transfer proceedings from one Bench to another, could have stayed proceedings before a two member Bench and rendered interim orders passed by that Bench inoperative? HELD THAT - The Chairman of the Tribunal is an entity distinct from the Tribunal and exercises administrative powers and such other powers as are expressly conferred o 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 - A perusal of Section 5 indicates that the Chairman is empowered to discharge administrative functions of constituting Benches by transferring a Member from one Bench to another, authorizing the Judicial Member or the Administrative Member appointed to one Bench to discharge the functions of Judicial Member or Administrative Member of another Bench. A careful reading of the provisions of the 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, as observed above. All norms of judicial propriety and judicial discipline apply as much to the Tribunal as to Courts including the High Court. 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. 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, could not have stayed proceedings pending before a larger Bench - the Division Bench rightly allowed the writ petition. The appeal is dismissed with costs, quantified at Rs.25,000/-, to be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks from the date.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Chairman of CAT's power to stay proceedings before a Division Bench.
2. Representation and hearing before the High Court.
3. Interpretation of relevant sections of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
4. Judicial propriety and decorum in the context of interim orders.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Chairman of CAT's power to stay proceedings before a Division Bench:
The main question before the Supreme Court was whether the Chairman of the Tribunal, sitting singly and exercising his power under Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, could have stayed proceedings before a two-member Bench and rendered interim orders passed by that Bench inoperative. The Supreme Court answered this question in the negative, stating that the Chairman of CAT does not have the power under Section 25 to pass any interim order of stay of proceedings pending before a Bench of the Tribunal. The Court emphasized that judicial orders passed by a Tribunal are binding on all concerned, including the Tribunal itself on its administrative side, unless set aside or modified by a higher forum in the exercise of appellate or revisional powers.

2. Representation and hearing before the High Court:
The appellant argued that the impugned order was passed without giving the appellant an opportunity of hearing and that no Vakalatnama was executed authorizing the Additional Solicitor General of India to appear before the High Court on behalf of AIIMS. The Supreme Court dismissed this argument, noting that the impugned order records the appearance of the Additional Solicitor General on behalf of AIIMS. The Court found the objection regarding the representation to be preposterous, considering AIIMS is under the full control of the Central Government.

3. Interpretation of relevant sections of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985:
The Court examined Sections 5, 24, and 25 of the Act. Section 5 outlines the composition and functioning of the Tribunal, including the powers of the Chairman. Section 24 limits the power to pass interim orders by imposing conditions on the exercise of such power. Section 25 grants the Chairman the power to transfer cases from one Bench to another. The Court concluded that while the Chairman has significant administrative powers, including the ability to transfer cases, these powers do not extend to staying proceedings or nullifying orders passed by a larger Bench.

4. Judicial propriety and decorum in the context of interim orders:
The Supreme Court emphasized that judicial decorum and propriety demand that a judicial order, whether 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 by a smaller Bench of lesser strength. The Court noted that the Chairman, like the Chief Justice of Higher Courts, may have additional administrative duties and responsibilities but is equal to any other Member when acting judicially. Therefore, the Chairman could not have stayed proceedings pending before a larger Bench.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court, which had set aside the order of the Chairman of CAT staying proceedings before the two-member Bench. The appeal was dismissed with costs, quantified at Rs.25,000, to be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks from the date of the judgment.