Taking a swift move, the Delhi High Court has recently directed the Registry of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) to place an explanation to its Chairman as to why a certain matter was listed prior to the date for which it was adjourned.

The order came out during the hearing of the petition filed against two orders passed by the CAT.

CASE BACKGROUND

The petitioner herein had filed a plea before the Tribunal which was allowed by an order passed in April 2017.

Aggrieved by the order, the respondent in the case then went on to review the order and the same was allowed by an order dated passed in March 2019.

The matter was adjourned in the end for a date in April 2019 accounting for a fresh hearing.

Later on, when the matter came up for hearing on the due date in April, the applicant was not represented and the Registry was directed to issue a notice to the applicant returnable on July 23, 2019.

The petitioner herein has contended before the Court the Tribunal, without awaiting the date fixed in the case, took-up and heard in his absence in May 2019 and the plea was dismissed.

He further informed that even after he brought the fact to the notice of the Tribunal by filing a review application, the same was dismissed without taking the submission into account.

Learned Counsel of the respondent though submitted that there was no infirmity in the order passed on merits but failed to justify as to how the matter was listed prior to the date due for the same.

The Court after hearing the submission from both the parties opined that while it may not be unusual for a matter to inadvertently get listed on a date prior to the date for which the notice was issued.

The Court as well registered its surprise with the fact that when the matter came up before the Tribunal on a prior date and that the petitioner’s plea was dismissed without paying attention to this fact and when he pointed the error out by way of a review application, the same was also dismissed.

The Court thus remarked,

“We fail to understand as to why, when the matter was adjourned to 23.07.2019, was the matter listed on a prior date by the Registry of the Tribunal. The Registry must furnish an explanation to the Chairman of the Tribunal for this lapse. We are also rather alarmed that when this lapse was brought to the notice of the Tribunal by way of the review application, the Tribunal did not deem it appropriate to review the order and give a hearing to the petitioner which he is entitled to in law.”

Considering the above facts, the Court directed the Registry of the Tribunal to ensure that an explanation is placed before the Chairman of the Tribunal in regard to the lapse that occurred in the case.

The Court in its conclusion mentioned that it was “left with no option” but to set-aside, an impugned order passed in May 2019 which had dismissed the petitioner’s plea.

It thus directed the Tribunal to re-hear the petitioner and provide both the parties with a fair chance to put up their case in a fresh hearing. 

The petitioner was represented by Advocates Sumit Bansal, Prateek Kohli.

The respondents were represented by Senior Standing Counsel Jagjit Singh with Advocates Preet Singh, Vipin Chaudhary.

The order has been passed by Justice GS Sistani and Justice Anup J Bhambhani on 25-11-2019.

Read Order Here:

 

Share this Document :

Picture Source :