http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

PETITIONER: R.R.BHANOT

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA

DATE OF JUDGMENT13/01/1994

BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) YOGESHWAR DAYAL (J)

CITATION:  1994 AIR 1531            1994 SCR  (1)   1  1994 SCC  (2) 406        JT 1994 (1)     1  1994 SCALE  (1)14

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                            ORDER 1.   We have heard Smt Shyamla Pappu, learned senior counsel for  the respondent who has preferred this review  petition. On  a consideration of the matter, we find that the  grounds raised  in  support  of  the  review,  do  not  justify  our interference with the earlier order dated February 9, 1993. 2.   However,  there  is one other aspect which  might  bear consideration.  In the course of the order, it was observed: (SCC p. 173, para 17)               "Ordinarily,  keeping in view the judgment  of               this  Court in Amulya Chandra Kalita case’  we               should have remanded the case to the  Tribunal               for a fresh disposal because of the fact  that               the order of the Tribunal was rendered by only               one member or to have awaited the decision  of               some cases pending in this Court in which  the               validity of the order passed by single  member               of the Tribunal is under consideration....... 3.   This    statement   might   be   susceptible   of    an interpretation   that  it  denudes  the  efficacy   of   the pronouncement  of this Court in Mahabal Ram (Dr)  v.  Indian Council of Agricultural Research2 to which reference was not made  at the hearing of the main appeal.  It is,  therefore, appropriate  that  the observations,  excerpted  above,  are deleted  from  the order.  They are,  accordingly,  deleted, lest there be scope for any such misunderstanding. 408