Gujarat High Court
Minor Sumit Suresh Sharma vs Union Of India on 27 August, 2018
Author: J.B.Pardiwala
Bench: J.B.Pardiwala
C/FA/1528/2018 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1528 of 2018
==========================================================
MINOR SUMIT SURESH SHARMA
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
MS ARCHANA U AMIN(2462) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 27/08/2018
ORAL ORDER
1. This First Appeal is admitted and taken up for final disposal forthwith as a very limited issue is required to be looked into.
2. This First Appeal under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, 'the Act, 1987') is at the instance of the original claimant and is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.03.2015 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad in Case No. OA-
IIU/ADI/2011/0015. The claim application filed by the appellant herein came to be rejected. The operative part of the impugned order reads as under:
Page 1 of 6 C/FA/1528/2018 ORDER"ORDER
15. In view of the negative findings of issue Nos. 1 & 2 the claim application stands dismissed.
(i) No order as to costs.
In terms of the above, the present claim application is disposed off. Let this case file be consigned to Records Room.
The judgment signed, dated and pronounced in open court on date i.e. 30th day of March, 2015.
Place: Ahmedabad [N. M. Misra]
Date: 30-03-2015 Member (Technical)/RCT/ADI"
3. Thus it is apparent from the above that the tribunal constituted only of one member and that too, a technical member. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant have invited my attention to the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Union of India Thro General Manager & Ors. v. Satendra Ramjor Oza & Ors. in Special Civil Application No.2606 of 2013 decided on 09.07.2015.
4. The Division Bench of this Court in connection with an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Page 2 of 6 C/FA/1528/2018 ORDER Ahmedabad, held as under:
"3. Learned advocate for the petitioners-original respondents No.1 to 7 has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal deserves to quashed and set aside since the impugned order is passed by a Single Member of the Tribunal.
3.1. In support of his contention, the learned advocate for the petitioners has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Amulya Chandra Kalita vs. Union of India, reported in 1990 (16) ALR, 487 = (1991) 1 SCC 181 and the decision of this Court passed in Special Civil Application No.11714 of 2000 dated 24.07.2013.
4. Learned advocate for the respondent No1 is not in a position to controvert the decisions relied upon by the learned advocate for the petitioners.
5. We have heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the material on record. The issue involved in this petition has already been decided by the Apex Court in the case of Amulya Chandra Kalita (supra), wherein it has been observed that every bench of the Tribunal must consist of a judicial member and an Administrative Member. Therefore, the Administrative member alone could not have heard and decide the matter.
Page 3 of 6 C/FA/1528/2018 ORDER6. Even, the coordinate Bench of this Court while deciding the Special Civil Application No.11714 of 2006 on 24.07.2013 has observed as under:-
"Both orders have been passed by the single administrative Member of the Tribunal. The controversy whether single Member can decide the matter or not ?. The similar question has been decided by the Apex Court in case of State of M.P. vs. B.R.Thakare and Ors in (2002) 10 SCC 338 and held that the case involved question of law and its interpretation should be assigned to Division Bench of one of the Member should be a Judicial Member. In para 3 of this Judgment the Apex Court has held as under:
"3. Even assuming that all the powers of the Tribunal could be exercised by any Single Member, it can only be by a judicial Member of the Tribunal and not any other member under the aforesaid order."
From the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, it is clear that since question of law and interpretation is involved, the single Member of the Tribunal can not hear and decide the OA and subsequently since he was administrative Member, he has no jurisdiction to decide the matter singly as only Judicial Member in some of the cases can decide the matter singly.
Page 4 of 6 C/FA/1528/2018 ORDERFor the aforesaid reasons the order passed by the Tribunal in OA no. 193/2004 on 31/8/2005 as well as order passed in Review Application being R.A. no. 52/2005 dated 14/10/2005 cannot be maintained.
7. Considering the facts of the present case as also the principle laid down in the above referred cases, we are of the considered opinion that a Single Member of the Tribunal cannot hear and decide the Original application. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable.
8. For the foregoing reasons, the present petition stands allowed. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23.10.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad, in Original Application No.118 of 2007 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad for deciding the same on merits by a bench properly constituted under the law. It is, however, clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter."
5. Although the division bench decision was in connection with the Central Administrative Tribunal, yet the principle laid down in the said judgment can be made applicable in the present case also. In my view, the claim application could not have been adjudicated by a single member (technical). In view of the above, this First Appeal is allowed. The impugned Page 5 of 6 C/FA/1528/2018 ORDER judgment and order is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad, for fresh adjudication of the claim petition on merits. This time, the claim application shall be heard by a bench consisting of judicial member as well as member technical.
6. It is clarified that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. It is further clarified that it will be open for the parties to raise all submissions available to them in law afresh. The claim application shall be decided afresh without being influenced in any manner by any of the observation made in the impugned judgment and order.
7. Let the claim application be reheard and decided within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order.
(J.B.PARDIWALA, J) MAYA Page 6 of 6