A
UNION OF INDIA
v.
x__
HARNAM SINGH
JANUARY 13, 1994
B
[M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, CJI AND AS. ANAND, J.] :
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 : Sections 5(1)(2) and (6).
"--
Tribunal--Power of Single Member to dispose of cases-Observations in judg-
ment under review-Deletion of.
I
c
Dismissing the Review Petition Filed against the decision in Union
of India v. Hamam Singh, (1993) 2 S.C.C. 162, this Court
HELD : The observation in the judgment under review to the effect
that "ordinarily keeping in view the Judgment of this Court in Amulya
D Chandra Kalita's case ...... is under consideration ...... " is deleted as ii is
susceptible or aQ interpretation denuding the efficacy or the judgment in
Dr. Mahabal Ram's case. To which reference was not made at the hearing
_ _.(
or the main appeal. (119-B, DJ
Amulya Chandra Kalita v. Union of India, (1991) 1 S.C.C. 181 and
E
Dr. Mahabal Ram v. Indian Council of Agricultural Research and Ors., (1991)
2 L.L.J. 112, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Review Petition (C) No.
1384 of 1993.
F
IN
- --(
Civil Appeal No. 502 of 1993.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.5.92 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A.No. 1252 of 1992.
G
Mrs. Shyamala Pappu and J.D. Jain for the Petitioner.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
}-
'
1. We have heard Smt. Shyamla Pappu, learned senior counsel for
H the respondent who has preferred this review petition. On a consideration
118
·-
-
U.0.1. v. HARNAM SINGH
119
of the matter, we find that the grounds raised in support of the review, do A
not justify our interference with the earlier order 9th February, 1993.
2. However, there is one other aspect which might bear considera-
tion. In the course of the order, it was observed :
"Ordinarily, keeping in view the judgment of this Cpurt in
Amulya Chandra Kalita's case [supra], we should have
remanded the case to the Tr_ibunal for a fresh ~posal
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 1991 (2) LLJ
B
c
112 : Dr. Mahabal Ram v. Indian Council of Agricultural Research and
Others to which reference was not made at the hearing of the main appeal. D
It is, therefore, appropriate that the observations, exce:q>ted above, are
deleted from the order. They are, accordingly, deleted, leist there be scope
for any such misunderstanding.
T.NA.
Review petition dismissed.
Lex