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

PETITIONER: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: CHHAYA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       09/04/1999

BENCH: S.L.Goyal

JUDGMENT:

DER

       Delay condoned.

       Learned  counsel  for  the  petitioners  refers   to Section   5,   sub-section   (4),   sub-clause  (a)  of  the Administrative Tribunals Act and submits that the  Chairman, who   is   otherwise  a  Judicial  Member,  can  act  as  an Administrative Member also.  The  said  provision  reads  as follwos:-

               (4)     Notwithstanding          anything

               (a)  may,  in addition to discharging the         functions  of  the   Judicial   Member   or   the         Administrative Member of the Bench to which he is         appointed discharge the functions of the Judicial         Member or, as the case may be, the Administrative         Member, of any other Bench."

       In  our  opinion,  the  aforesaid  submission of the learned counsel is not correct.    The  Chairman  may  be  a Judicial Member  or an Administrative Member.  All that this sub-clause permits is that the Chairman can function at more than one Benches.    This  provision  obviously  had  to  be included  in  order  to  enable  the Chairman to function at different places when he goes on tour.  This provision  does not  enable  the Judicial Member to act as an Administrative Member or vice versa.  If the Chairman is a person  who  was an  Administrative  Member, then under Section 5(4)(a) if he goes to another Bench  he  can  sit  on  that  Bench  as  an Administrative  Member,  but  certainly  not  as  a Judicial Member.  The same will be true with regard to  the  chairman who is a Judicial Member.

       We  do  not  find  any infirmity in the order of the High Court.  The solution to the problem in hand is to  make early appointments.

       The special leave petition is dismissed.

REPORTABLE.