STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. versus GUJARAT REVENUE TRIBUNAL BAR ASSOCIATION AND ANR.

Citation: [2012] 10 S.C.R. 816 · Decided: 16-10-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012] 10 S.C.R. 816 
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. 
v. 
GU.JARAT REVENUE TRIBUNAL BAR ASSOCIATION AND 
ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 7208 of 2012) 
OCTOBER 16, 2012 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED 
IBRAHIM KALIFL:LLA, JJ.] 
C 
Tribunal - Gujarat Revenue Tribunal - Appointment of 
President - Held: Gujarat Revenue Tribunal is akin to a court 
and performs similar functions - Consequently, consultation/ 
concurrence of tfie High Court required in appointment of the 
President of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal - The consultation 
D must be conscious, effective, meaningful and purposeful and 
not empty formality - Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act, 1957 
- s.3(2) - Gujarat Revenue Tribunal Rules, 1982- r.3(1)(iii)(a) 
- Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 234. 
E 
Tribunal - Creation of - Purpose - Tests to determine 
whether a tribunal is a court or not - Discussed. 
F 
Words and Phrases - "court" and "tribunal" - Meaning of 
-
Held: The terms 'court' and 'tribunal' are not inter-
changeable. 
Words and Phrases - "judicial office" - Meaning of. 
The State Government of Gujarat, in exercise of its 
powers under the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act, 1957 
G and the Gujarat· Revenue Tribunal Rules, 1982 appointed 
appellant no.2 as the President of the Gujarat Revenue 
Tribunal. The respondents filed a writ petition challenging 
the appointment on the ground that the office concerned, 
being a "judicial office" could not be usurped by 
H 
816 
STATE OF GUJARAT v. GUJARAT REVENUE 
817 
TRIBUNAL BAR ASSOCN. 
appellant no.2, who had been an Administrative officer all 
A 
his life. The High Court allowed the writ petition and 
struck down Rule 3(1 )(iii)(a) of the Gujarat Revenue 
Tribunal Rules 1982, which conferred upon the State 
Government the power to appoint the Secretary to the 
Government of Gujarat, as the President of the Revenue 
B 
Tribunal constituted under the Bombay Revenue Tribunal 
Act, 1957. The High Court held that the Revenue Tribunal 
was in the strict sense, a "court" and the President, who 
presided over such Tribunal could therefore, only be a 
"Judicial Officer", a District Judge etc., for which c 
concurrence of the High Court was necessary under 
Article 234 of the Constitution. Hence the instant appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Although, the term 'court' has not been 
D 
defined under the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act, 1957, 
it is indisputable that courts belong to the judicial 
hierarchy and constitute the country's judiciary, as 
distinct from the executive or legislative branches of the 
State. Judicial functions involve the decision of rights and 
liabilities of the parties. An enquiry and investigation into 
facts is a material part of the judicial function. The 
legislature, in its wisdom has created tribunals and 
transferred the work which was regularly done by the civil 
courts to them, as it was found necessary to do so in 
order to provide efficacious remedy and also to reduce 
the burden on the civil courts and further, also to save 
the aggrieved person from bearing the burden of heavy 
court fees etc. Thus, the system of tribunals was created 
E 
F 
as a machinery for the speedy disposal of claims arising 
G 
under a particular Statute/Act. Most of the Tribunals have 
been given the power to lay down their own procedure. 
In some cases, the procedure may be adopted by the 
Tribunal and the same may require the approval of the 
competent authority/government. However, in each case, 
H 
818 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 10 S.C.R. 
A the principles of natural justice are required to be 
observed. Such tribunals therefore, basically perform 
quasi-judicial functions. The system of tribunals is hence, 
unlike that of the regularly constituted courts under the 
hierarchy of the judicial system, which are not authorised 
B to devise their own procedure for dealing with cases. 
Under certain statutes, 'T'ribunals have been authorised 
to exercise certain powers conferred under certain 
provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure or the Code of 
Criminal Procedure, but not under the whole Code, be it 
C Civil or Criminal. However, hi a regular court, the said 
Codes, in their entirety, civil as well as criminal, must be 
strictly adhered to. Therefore, the terms 'court' and 
'Tribunal' are not inter-changeable. [Para 9] [834-A-G] 
1.2. A Tribunal may not necessarily be a court, inspite 
D of the fact that it may be presided over by a judicial officer, 
as other qualified persons may 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.