✦ Supreme Court of India

ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES v. SANJIV CHATURVEDI & Ors.

Case at a glance

Outcome

Dismissed

The appeal is dismissed with costs, quantified at Rs

Judgment

4.2 The power under Section 25 of the Act to transfer cases from one Bench to another is essentially an administrative power of the Chairman of CAT. Such power is to be exercised by the Chairman on his own motion or on the application of any of the parties after notice to the parties, and after hearing such of them as he may desire to be heard. The Chairman may, on his motion, transfer any case pending before one Bench to another without notice. A careful reading of Section 25 of the Act makes it clear that the Chairman deciding the question of whether a matter should be transferred from one Bench to another cannot grant interim stay of proceedings, their being no power conferred on the Chairman under the said section to pass such interim stay. ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES v. SANJIV CHATURVEDI 865 Power under Section 24 to grant interim orders has been conferred on the Tribunal, and/or in other words, a Bench of the Tribunal in seisin of proceedings in respect of which the Bench is entitled to exercise the jurisdiction and powers of the Tribunal. [Paras 58, 59, 60][881-C-E]

4.3 A Tribunal created under the Act as also its Chairman derives its powers from the Act and can only exercise such powers as are conferred by the Act. The Chairman of the Tribunal exercising its power under Section 25 of the Act does not function as a Tribunal. The Chairman of CAT does not have power under Section 25 to pass any interim order of stay of proceedings pending before a Bench of the Tribunal. [Para 61][881-F-G]

4.4 A careful reading of the provisions of the Administrative Tribunal Act and in particular Sections 14 and 15 thereof in juxtaposition with Article 323A of the Constitution leaves no manner of doubt that an Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Act to give effect to Article 323A of the Constitution exercises all the jurisdiction powers and authority exercisable by all the Courts before commencement of the Act and has all the attributes of a Court of law except that it is not bound by the strict rules of procedure embodied in the Civil Procedure Code or the strict rules of evidence prescribed by the Evidence Act. All norms of judicial propriety and judicial discipline apply as much to the Tribunal as to Courts including the High Court. [Para 62][881-G- H; 882-A-B]

4.5 A judicial order passed by a Tribunal is binding on all concerned, including the tribunal itself on its administrative side, unless set aside or modified by a higher forum in exercise of appellate or revisional powers. In no circumstances, can a judicial order of a Bench of the Tribunal be nullified or rendered nugatory by its Chairman. [Para 63][882-C]

4.6 In view of Section 12 of the Act, the Chairman of the Tribunal can only exercise financial and administrative powers over the Benches as may be vested under the Rules. The Chairman may thus, constitute Benches, shift members from one Bench to another, constitute Single Benches, Division Benches and even larger Benches, allocate business to the Benches and even transfer cases from one Bench to the other, but having done A B C D E F G H 866 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 1 S.C.R. so he cannot interfere with the functioning of the Benches or tinker with its orders by passing interim orders in a transfer petition. [Para 64][882-D-E]

4.7 In any case, judicial decorum and propriety demands that a judicial order, ad interim, interim or final be vacated, varied, modified, recalled or reviewed by a Bench of coordinate strength or larger strength or a higher forum, but not a smaller Bench of lesser strength, except in cases where such authority to a lower forum and/or smaller Bench is expressly conferred or implicit in the order sought to be vacated, varied, modified, recalled or reviewed. [Para 65][882-E-F]

4.8 The interim order passed by a Court does not operate as a precedent and the law declared by the Supreme Court with regard to the precedential value of judgments of Benches of larger strength may not operate as a binding precedent in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. The judgments referred to in the preceding paragraphs lay down the norms of judicial decorum and propriety which give precedence to Benches of higher strength. There is no reason at all why the same principles should not apply even to interim orders in pending proceedings. [Para 67][883-B-C]

4.9 An interim order passed by a court, on consideration of the prima facie case made out by an applicant, should ordinarily have been vacated by a Bench of coordinate strength after giving open notice to the applicant. If the Chairman was of the considered opinion that there was urgency in the application for vacating the interim order, the Chairman ought to have assigned the application for vacating and/or vacation of the interim order to a Bench of two or more Members to consider whether the interim order should continue or be vacated. The Chairman could also have exercised his power to suo motu transfer the proceedings to another Bench without prior notice. The order of stay of the proceedings before the Nainital Bench is without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law. [Para 68][883-D-E]

4.10 The Division Bench rightly allowed the writ petition. The Chairman, like the Chief Justice of the Higher Courts or the Chief Judge of subordinate courts, may be higher in order of A B C D E F G H ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES v. SANJIV CHATURVEDI 867 protocol and may have additional administrative duties and responsibilities. However, the Chairman, acting judicially, is equal to any other Member. The Chairman, being one amongst equals, the order of the Chairman of CAT staying proceedings before the two member Bench was without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law. The cost quantified at Rs. 25,000/- directed to be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within the stipulated period. [Paras 73, 74][885-D-E]

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: The appeal is dismissed with costs, quantified at Rs

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 — s. 25; Preamble of the Act; Administrative Tribunal Act; Constitution of India — arts. 32, 323A; Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Amendment Act, 1976.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Supreme Court of India or eCourts case status (search case no. Civil Appeal No. 1392 of 2019). ← Search more judgments