DHULIRAM PATNAIK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners while approaching this Court in July, 1985 assailed the constitutionality of Art 323 -A of the Constitution and the vires of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act'). They also impugned establishment of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter, 'the Tribunal') by the Central Government in exercise of the power Under Section 4(2) of the Act. They further felt aggrieved at the non -sitting of the Tribunal at Cuttack which is the seat of the High Court. The last grievance related to the appointment of Shri Cian Chand, retired I. A. S., to the post of Chairman of the Tribunal.

(2.) THE scene, however, changed in December, 1986 in the wake of the decision of the Apex Court in S. P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 386. After this rendering by a Constitution Bench, Shri Dora appearing for the petitioners has urged the following two points for our consideration : (1) There should be a permanent Bench of the Tribunal at Cuttack and (2) the continuance of Shri Gian Chand in the post of Chairman is invalid in the eye of law,

(3.) WE understand that after the aforesaid order, the Tribunal has started sitting for two days a week at Cutttack, but it is confining its work to the hearing of the cases, transferred from this Court. It is urged by Shri Dora that there is no reason as to why the Tribunal should so confine itself to the aforesaid cases and why it should not take up other cases and not accept filing of new cases. Learned Advocate General appearing for the State shares the view expressed by Shri Dora, and, according to him, the sitting of the Tribunal at Cuttack has to be effective sitting and new metters and admission hearing have also to be taken up by the sitting of the Tribunal at Cuttack. We find no difficulty in accepting this submission of Shri Dora.