TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | ChinaUnited StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | The Tribune ScienceTime CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My MoneyAutoZone
News Columns | Straight DriveCanada CallingLondon LetterKashmir AngleJammu JournalInside the CapitalHimachal CallingHill View
Don't Miss
Advertisement

CAT single member’s order not sustainable, Chandigarh tells High Court

Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium

Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only Benefits
Yearly Premium ₹999 ₹349/Year
Yearly Premium $49 $24.99/Year
Advertisement

Saurabh Malik
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, March 12

Advertisement

An order passed by a single member of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) is not sustainable. This was told to the Punjab and Haryana High Court by the Chandigarh Administration during the hearing of a petition. Its senior standing counsel informed a Division Bench of the High Court that a notification issued more than four years ago made it clear that such an order was without jurisdiction.

Advertisement

The Bench of Justice Rajan Gupta and Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta was hearing the petition filed by the UT Administration and other petitioners against Amit Sharma

and other respondents. As the service matter came up for preliminary hearing before the Bench on a previous date of hearing, the Judges asked the UT senior standing counsel, Pankaj Jain, to explain whether the order under challenge passed by a single member of the Tribunal was sustainable. Jain, under the circumstances, sought some time to examine the issue. Taking a note of his submission, the matter was adjourned for further hearing.

As the case came up for resumed hearing, Jain produced the notification dated September 8, 2016, which was taken on record by the Bench. Referring to the notification, Jain told the Bench that a bare perusal of the document made it clear that the order passed by the single member of the Tribunal would be coram non judice.

Advertisement

The Latin legal maxim means “not before a judge” and is basically used to indicate a proceeding before a court lacking the authority to hear and decide the case in question.

Taking a note of the submissions, the Bench asserted: “In view of the above, we deem it fit to relegate the petitioners to the same authority for moving an appropriate application to consider its plea”. The Bench, with the direction, disposed of the matter.

The case is significant as it means orders passed by a single member of the Tribunal would be considered as lacking jurisdiction in view of the notification.

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement