Maharashtra & Ors Vs. Chhaya & Ors
 INSC 136 (9 April 1999)
counsel for the petitioners refers to Section 5, sub-section (4), sub-clause
(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act and submits that the Chairman, who is
otherwise a Judicial Member, can act as an Administrative Member also. The said
provision reads as follwos:- (4) Notwithstanding anything (a) may, in addition
to discharging the functions of the Judicial Member or the Administrative
Member of the Bench to which he is appointed discharge the functions of the
Judicial Member or, as the case may be, the Administrative Member, of any other
Bench." In our opinion, the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel is
not correct. The Chairman may be a Judicial Member or an Administrative Member.
All that this sub-clause permits is that the Chairman can function at more than
one Benches. This provision obviously had to be included in order to enable the
Chairman to function at different places when he goes on tour. This provision
does not enable the Judicial Member to act as an Administrative Member or vice
versa. If the Chairman is a person who was an Administrative Member, then under
Section 5(4)(a) if he goes to another Bench he can sit on that Bench as an
Administrative Member, but certainly not as a Judicial Member. The same will be
true with regard to the chairman who is a Judicial Member.
not find any infirmity in the order of the High Court. The solution to the
problem in hand is to make early appointments.
special leave petition is dismissed.