Meghalaya Cements Ltd vs The Union Of India And 5 Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 977 Gua

                                                                Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010186782020




                      THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                         Case No. : WP(C)/5712/2020

         MEGHALAYA CEMENTS LTD
         A COMPANY REGD. UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGD.
         OFFICE SITUATED AT LOHIA HOUSE, M.G.ROAD, FANCY BAZAR, GHY-01,
         REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (LOGISTIC) SRI UMED NAHATA, AGED
         ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O- LT. CHAMPA LAL NAHATA, LOHIA HOUSE,
         M.G.ROAD, FANCY BAZAR, GHY-01



         VERSUS

         THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS
         REP. BY THE SECY., MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, RAILWAY BOARD, RAILWAY
         BHAVAN, NEW DELHI

         2:THE CHAIRMAN
          RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
          13/15
          MALL ROAD
          DELHI- 110054

         3:THE VICE CHAIRMAN (EAST ZONE)
          RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
          CALCUTTA BENCH 2
          ESPLANADE MANSION
          ESPLANADE EAST KOLKATA- 700069

         4:THE REGISTRAR
          RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
          GUWAHATI BENCH
          STATION ROAD
          GUWAHATI

         5:THE GENERAL MANAGER
                                                                                    Page No.# 2/4

              N.F.RAILWAY
              MALIGAON
              GHY-11

              6:THE GENERAL MANAGER
               EASTERN RAILWAYS
               17
               NETAJI SUBHASH ROAD
               KOLKATA
               700001
              WEST BENGA

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. A GOYAL

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, RAILWAY




                                          BEFORE
               THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANTA KUMAR DEKA
                                           ORDER

15.03.2021.

Heard A. Goyal, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. K. Goswami, the learned Standing Counsel for the Railway Claims Tribunal.

The petitioner had challenged the judicial functioning of the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati wherein the learned Member (Technical) sitting singly is adjudicating the claim applications of claimants including the petitioner. Mr. Goyal submits that the said judicial function is in violation of Sub-Section 2 of the Section 4 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. It is submitted that the learned Member (Technical) is not empowered to adjudicate the claim applications sitting singly in absence of the learned Member (Judicial) as normally questions of law are also involved along with technical points. The petitioner also challenged the various orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A.- III-58/2013 (OLD), O.A.- (III)/GHY/2013/0103 (NEW). Mr. Goswami, the learned Standing Counsel representing the Tribunal fairly submits that in the event, the petitioner is aggrieved by the judicial function carried out by the learned Member (Technical) in absence of the learned Member (Judicial), the petitioner at the very first hearing is required to bring it to the notice Page No.# 3/4

of the learned Tribunal and in support of the said submission Mr. Goswami relied the case law in Mahabal Ram -Vs- Indian Council of Agricultural Research reported in (1994) 2 SCC 401.

I have given due consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel. Here in this matter, the petitioner is aggrieved due to the judicial function of the learned Tribunal which as per the submission of Mr. Goyal is in violation of Sub-Section 2 of the Section 4 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. In Mahabal Ram -Vs- Indian Council of Agricultural Research reported in (1994) 2 SCC 401, the Apex court decided the question as to whether a single member of the Central Administrative Tribunal set up under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 has jurisdiction to dispose of matters coming before the Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 which question was referred by a two Judge Bench to a larger Bench of the Apex Court and the relevant observation as against the said reference is extracted herein below:-

"6. Sub-Sections (2) and (6) appearing as limbs of the same section have to be harmoniously construed. There is no doubt that what has been said in Sampath Kumar case (1987) 1 SCC 124 : (1987) 2 ATC 82: AIR 1987 SC 386: (1987) 1 SCR 435 would require safeguarding the interest of litigants in the matter of disposal of their disputes in a judicious way. Where complex questions of law would be involved the dispute would require serious consideration and thorough examination. There would, however, be many cases before the Tribunal where very often no constitutional issues or even legal points would be involved. Mr. Ramamurthi, Senior Counsel, suggested to us in course of the hearing that keeping the principles indicated in the Constitutional Bench judgment in view, the Single Member contemplated under sub-section (6) should be meant to cover a judicial member only. That view may perhaps not be appropriate to adopt. On the other hand, we are prepared to safeguard the interests of claimants who go before the Tribunal by holding that while allocating work to the Single Member - Whether judicial or administrative - in terms of sub-section (6), the Chairman should keep in view the nature of the litigation and where questions of law and for interpretation of constitutional provisions are involved they should not be assigned to a Single Member. In fact, the proviso itself indicates Parliaments concern to safeguard the interest of claimants by casting an obligation on the Chairman and Members who hear the cases to refer to a regular bench of two members such cases which in their opinion require to be heard by a bench of two Members. We would like to add that it would be open to either party appearing before a Single Member to suggest to the Member hearing the matter that it should go to a Page No.# 4/4

bench of two Members. The Member should ordinarily allow the matter to go to a bench of two Members when so requested. This would sufficiently protect the interests of the claimants and even of the administrative system whose litigations may be before the Single Member for disposal. To make a distinction between Judicial Member and Administrative Member functioning under sub-section (6) of Section 5 of the Act may not be appropriate and, therefore, we have not been able to accept the approach suggested by Mr. Ramamurthi. The observation made in the two-Judge Bench case that no provision was cited to them that a Single Member could hear cases laid before the Tribunal led to the conclusion that the judicial business of the Administrative Tribunal was intended to be carried by a bench of two Members. The vires of sub-section (6) has not been under challenge and, therefore, both the provisions in Section 5 have to be construed keeping the legislative intention in view. We are of the view that what we have indicated above brings out the true legislative intention and the prescription in sub-section (2) and the exemption in (6) are retionalised".

From the aforesaid ratio, it is found that it would be open to either parties appearing before a Single Member to suggest to the Member hearing the matter that it should go to a bench comprising two Members. On a specific query to Mr. Goyal as to whether any application was filed before the learned Single Member (Technical) raising the issue which forms subject matter in this writ petition, Mr. Goyal fairly submits that he had not raised the issue before the learned Member (Technical).

In view of the same, as consented by Mr. Goswami, I am of the considered opinion that this writ petition can be disposed of which I accordingly do, directing the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the learned Member (Technical) of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati as observed hereinabove and thereafter, the learned Member (Technical) shall pass an appropriate order.

With the said observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant