Case Law Details
Alapan Bandyopadhyay Vs Union Of India And Anr (Delhi High Court)
Learned counsel for the Petitioner strenuously argued that under Rule 6(2) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, it is the statutory right and option of the Petitioner, being a retired person, to file an O.A. before the Kolkata Bench, as he was ordinarily residing in West Bengal at the time of filing the O.A. No doubt, Rule 6(2) gives an option to the applicant who has ceased to be in service, to file an application before a Bench, within whose jurisdiction such person is ordinarily residing at the time of filing of the application. This is explicit from a plain reading of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 6 and needs no elaboration or interpretation. However, the question that arises is whether this right of an applicant can control or regulate the administrative powers of a Chairman under Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. In our opinion, the answer can only be in the negative.
As rightly argued by Mr. Mehta, the power of a Chairman of the Tribunal under Section 25 of the 1985 Act is purely an administrative power to transfer cases from one Bench to another, which can be exercised on an application by any party or even on his own motion in a given case and where the facts and circumstances so warrant. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in All India Institute of Medical Sciences (supra), the Chairman of a Tribunal is an entity distinct from the Tribunal and the administrative powers to transfer a matter are different and separate from the decision making powers on the judicial side. Therefore, it may not be wrong to hold that the administrative powers are akin to the power of the Master of Roster, who alone has the prerogative to constitute the Benches and allocate cases.
The contention that the right of an applicant under Rule 6(2) will control or override the power of the Chairman under Section 25, in our view, is wholly misconceived. If this proposition is to be accepted, it would result in a situation where in no case, an O.A. filed by an applicant, who has ceased to be in service, invoking Rule 6(2) at a place of his choice, would be open to transfer to another Bench, by the Chairman. This would make Section 25 redundant and subservient to Rule 6(2), which could not have been the intent of the Legislature while enacting Section 25 of the 1985 Act. The wide powers conferred on the Chairman to transfer a matter can be clearly understood from the provisions of the Section whereby the Chairman has been conferred the power to transfer a matter from one Bench to another, on his own motion, without any application from any party. Being a purely administrative function, in our view, it is neither regulated nor controlled by the provisions of Rule 6(2) of the 1987 Rules. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that while the Petitioner has the option to approach the Bench at a place where he was ordinarily residing at the time of filing the application, however, the Chairman of the Tribunal has the administrative powers to transfer the matter to another Bench, albeit for sound reasons and after notice to and hearing the parties to the lis.
We also find merit in the contention of the Respondents that the scope of judicial review of an administrative decision is extremely limited and can only be exercised to scrutinize the decision making process.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
