Summary
The CAT Chairman, sitting singly on a transfer application, lacked power to stay proceedings before a two-member Bench and render its interim order ineffective. The administrative transfer power did not confer interim judicial jurisdiction over that Bench. Judicial discipline also precluded a smaller Bench from nullifying the larger Bench’s order in these circumstances. The High Court’s quashing of the stay was upheld with further costs.
Issues
- Whether the CAT Chairman could stay proceedings and effectively neutralise a two-member Bench’s interim order while deciding a transfer application.
- Whether AIIMS could challenge its recorded representation before the High Court for the first time in the appeal.
Provisions considered
- Sections 5(2), 5(6) and 25, Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985Single-member adjudicatory capacity and administrative transfer powers did not authorise interference with proceedings and orders of a larger Bench. (¶¶ 48–55, 58–65, 68–73)
- Section 24, Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985Interim power belonged to the Bench seised of the relevant proceedings, subject to service and hearing safeguards and the limited exceptional ex parte power. (¶¶ 48, 56–61)
Held
- The High Court recorded counsel’s appearance for AIIMS. Any claim of erroneous recording or lack of authority should have been raised there by an appropriate application; the Supreme Court did not determine the disputed authority question. (¶ 37–39)
- Section 25 conferred essentially administrative power to transfer cases, not power to grant interim stay of proceedings. In exercising that power the Chairman did not function as the Tribunal seised of the underlying case. (¶ 50–61)
- The Tribunal’s judicial orders bound its administrative side. The Chairman could constitute Benches or transfer proceedings but could not tinker with judicial orders through a transfer petition. Ordinarily alteration of an order required a coordinate or larger Bench or higher forum, subject to expressly conferred authority or authority implicit in the order. (¶ 62–68)
- If urgent consideration of vacating interim relief was needed, an application could be assigned to a Bench of two or more members; transfer powers also remained available. Sitting singly, the Chairman could not stay proceedings before the larger Bench. The authorities cited did not confer that power. (¶ 68–73)
Result
Appeal dismissed; High Court’s quashing of the Chairman’s stay and its costs order upheld. Further costs of ₹25,000 directed to be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks.