SHANTABEN JIVANBHAI PATEL Vs. PRESIDENT GUJARAT REVENUE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE relevant facts of the case appear to be that the revision was preferred by the petitioner herein against the order of the Deputy Collector before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The Revision was also heard by the Member of the Tribunal and on the said aspect there is no dispute. It appears that on 17. 11. 2003, the Member of the Tribunal, who heard the revision, passed the operative order whereby he allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Deputy Collector confirming the order of the Mamlatdar. On the said aspect also there is no dispute. It also appears from the original record, which has been called for, that after the pronouncement of the operative portion of the order, the application was made by some of the respondents before the Tribunal for suspending operation of the order so as to enable them to approach before the higher forum. The learned Member of the Tribunal did grant time for 21 days and therefore stayed the order. The aforesaid application is on page 309 of the record of the Tribunal. It appears that, thereafter on 18. 11. 2003, the application was made by the advocate of respondent in the revision before the Tribunal that as the extension has not come of the Member of the Tribunal, who passed the operative order, the reasons of the order have not been made available to his client and therefore the papers be called for and appropriate order be passed. The President of the Tribunal vide order dated 15. 12. 2003 below the said application observed that the learned Member has only pronounced the order but has not given the reasoned order and therefore the order pronounced by him becomes inoperative and the matter is required to be decided after hearing both the parties and thereafter he has allotted the matter to the another Member of the Tribunal for hearing and passing the appropriate order. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached to this Court for challenging the order passed by the President of the Tribunal observing that the order passed by the Member of the Tribunal becomes inoperative and the matter is required to be heard afresh.

(2.) HEARD Mr. Mehta for the petitioner, Mr. Raval, learned A. G. P. for respondent Nos. 1 and 7 and Mr. Adeshra for private respondent.

(3.) IT is true that the Member of the Tribunal when exercises the powers on judicial side, his order is not subjected to the powers of the President of the Tribunal. The President of the Tribunal enjoys the administrative powers for allotment of the work and other administrative matters of the Tribunal. But, there is no power to annul any judicial order passed by the Member of the Tribunal. At the same time, it is also required for the Member of the Tribunal when he is exercising the judicial powers to deliver the judgment which may include reasons, if any, or the grounds, if any, which has been considered by him and such judgment would also include the final operative portion of the order. It may not be proper on the part of the Member of the Tribunal while exercising the judicial powers at the time of final disposal of the revision proceedings to pronounce and pass operative order without recording the reasons for such operative portion. The original record which is called for by this Court does contain the operative portion which has produced by the petitioner and there are no reasons or the grounds of the operative portion available on the record. Therefore, such an exercise of judicial power by the Member of the Tribunal can be said as incomplete exercise of the judicial power. As such operative portion of the order would be illegal in absence of any reasons whatsoever recorded by the Member of the Tribunal while signing the operative portion of the order.