UNION OF INDIA Vs. GANPAT L KACHHAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Union of India, through its General Manager, Western Railway and another are constrained to approach this Court by way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders passed in Application No. OC-0500005 and in Application No. OC-0500010, by the Member (Judicial), Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad dated 6/10/2005, by which the Member (Judicial), Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad has set aside order No. RCD/DLI/Judicial Policy/02-03, dated 14/9/2005 issued by the Chairman, Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in exercise of the powers under sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 4 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for convenience), by which the Chairman, Railway Claims Tribunal has issued an administrative order directing the claim application having pecuniary jurisdiction of more than Rs. 2 Lacs will be heard by the Division Bench and having pecuniary jurisdiction of less than Rs. 2 Lacs will be heard by the Single Member Bench. The Member (Judicial) has further passed an order directing the Chairman, Railway Claims Tribunal to issuea fresh order under sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 4 read with Sec. 13 of the Act in its true letter and spirit. The Member (Judicial) has also further passed an order that till issuance of the fresh order as stated above, all the claim petitions/applications are kept sine die. Considering the fact that all the claim applications before the Railway Claims Tribunal are adjourned sine-die and working of the Railway Claims Tribunal has been paralysed since many months and ultimately the claimants are suffering and looking to the urgency and controversy in question, this Court has taken up the hearing of the present petition urgently and heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties at length.

(2.) At the outset, it is to be noted with regret and this Court is at pain to discuss the unnecessary controversy which has been arisen due to the avoidable order passed by the Member (Judicial). At the outset, it is to be observed and further as stated hereinafter that the Member (Judicial), Railway Claims Tribunal in the present case has acted absolutely without jurisdiction and has created unnecessary controversy by quashing and setting aside the administrative order passed by the Chairman, Railway Claims Tribunal, Delhi.

(3.) The following facts are necessary for the determination of the present petition.