9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (9) TMI 790X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preme Court would ensure that Administrative Members would be chosen from amongst those who had the requisite background to deal with the cases coming up before the Tribunal. In view of the observations of this Court in S.P. Sampath [ 1986 (12) TMI 136 - SUPREME COURT] and L. Chandra Kumar cases [ 1997 (3) TMI 90 - SUPREME COURT] 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. The findings recorded by the High Court run contrary to the law laid down by this Court. Thus, the Civil appeals are accepted, the interim order dated 25th February, 2002 which merged with the final order dated 9th April, 2002 passed by the High Court are set aside. The stay granted by the High Court is vacated. The authorities would be at liberty 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 in the writ petition, we remit the case back to the High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Tribunal issued a direction that in the panel already prepared for appointment of Vice-Chairman of various Branches of the Tribunal and in future panels also only the person referred to Section 6(2)(a) of the Act could be appointed as the Vice-Chairman of the Tribunal. 5. Aggrieved against the interim order of 25thFebruary, 2002 Mr. V.K. Majotra filed Civil Appeal No. 4106 of 2002 in which leave was granted and operation of the interim order dated 25thFebruary, 2002 passed by the High Court was stayed. 6. The writ petition was taken up for final disposal by the High Court on 9 April, 2002. Instead of disposing of the writ petition on the pleas 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-Chairman 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 and in all future panels only the person referred to in Section 6(2)(a) of the Act can be appoint ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is further contended that the High Court did not stop at giving direction that the Vice-Chairman of CAT should be from amongst the persons having judicial training but went a step ahead to hold that CEGAT, 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 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 of 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 law. 8. Counsel for the parties have been heard at length. 9. 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 were not at issue on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leadings and notifying the concerned and affected parties. 11. The relevant provisions of Section 6 read as under: "6. Qualifications for appointment of Chairman, Vice-Chairman or other Members.- (1) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as the Chairman unless he - (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 - (a) is, or has been, or is qualified to be a Judge of a High Court; or (b) has, for at least two yeas, 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 of India; or (bb) has, for at least five yeas, 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 which is not less 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. xxx ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h v. Union of India and Anr., . Vires of the provisions of the Act other than Section 6(1)(c) were upheld. Section 6(1)(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(1)(c) of the Act was later on deleted from the statute. As to Sub-sections (a), (b), (bb) and (c) of Section 6(2) for the appointment of Chairman/Vice-Chairman and other members from amongst the administrative services it was observed (vide 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 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 competent people to man these high offices of trust and help to build up reputation and acceptabil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... specialised knowledge be better equipped to dispense speedy and efficient justice. The Court held: "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 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 IPS 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 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 stopped. We find it difficult to accept such a contention. It must be remembered that the setting up of these Tribunals is founded on the premise that specialist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 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.
21. Since we are not deciding the dispute on merits and remitting the case back to the High Court for appropriate decision we refrain to go into merits of the dispute in writ petition No. 398 of 2002 and dismiss the same with liberty to the petitioner to approach the High Court, if so advised.
22. Shri D.C. Verma, Respondent No. 4 in the Writ Petition, is a Judicial 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.
23. Appeals are allowed. No costs. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
