There has been a phenomenal increase in the functions of the government, which has lent enormous powers to the executive and led to increase in the legislative output. This has led to more litigation, restrictions on the freedom of the individuals and constant frictions between them and the authority. Administrative tribunals have emerged not only in India but also in many other countries with the objective of providing a new type of justice - public good oriented justice.

These tribunals manned by technical experts, with flexibility in operations, informality in procedures have gained importance in the adjudication process. In this unit, we shall first discuss the meaning of administrative law. Then we will deal with the meaning and features of administrative tribunals, the reasons for their growth, their types and their advantages and disadvantages.

Moreover, it is necessary to understand the meaning of administrative law. It covers the entire gamut of public administration and includes the statutes, charters, rules, regulations, procedures, decisions etc. required for smooth running of administration.1

According to Jennings, administrative law is the law relating to the administration. It determines the organization, powers, and duties of administrative authorities. Wade remarks that administrative law is concerned with the operation and control of the powers of administrative authorities with emphasis on functions rather than the structure.

Administrative law has the following characteristics:2

• It subordinates the common law, rights of personal freedom, and private property to the common good. The stress is on public interest than on individual interest.
• It entails the application of flexible standards for implementation of law.
• The interpretation of these standards lies with the administrative tribunals.
• It puts the public officials in a better position over the people.
• It is not codified and is in an experimental and dynamic condition.

Meaning Of Tribunal

The term 'Tribunal' is derived from the word 'Tribunes' which means 'Magistrates of the Classical Roman Republic."3 Tribunal is a body constituted by or under statute to perform adjudicatory function. The term 'tribunal' refers to the adjudicatory bodies outside the sphere of the ordinary courts. The tern 'tribunal' does not have a fixed connotation; it is not a term of art. It is used in many senses.

It is not possible to define the 'tribunal' precisely and scientifically. According to the Dictionary,4 'Tribunal' means: (1) A court or other adjudicatory body; (2) The seat, bench or place where a judge sits. According to S.N. Jain, the term "Tribunal" has been used under the Indian Constitution in three different senses:

• All administrative bodies exercising quasi-judicial functions, whether as a part or parcel of the department or otherwise, may be termed as tribunal. The only distinguishing feature of these bodies as against other bodies exercising administrative power is that these bodies exercising administrative power is that these bodies are required to follow the rules od natural justice in rendering decisions.
   
• All those administrative adjudicatory bodies may be regarded as tribunals which are not under the control of the department involved in the dispute and therefore decide disputes as a judge from any departmental bias.
   
• The term tribunal as used in Article 136 has a special meaning in the sense that the authority must exercise 'inherent judicial power of the State'. Accordingly, the test to identify a tribunal is not its control, composition, or procedure but its function.

In the case of Durga Shanker Mehta v. Raghuraj Singh,2 The Supreme Court has defined 'tribunal' in the following words:

"The expression 'tribunal' as used in Article 136 does not mean the same thing as 'court' but includes, within its ambit, all adjudicating bodies, provided they are constituted by the state and are invested with judicial as distinguished from administrative or executive functions."

In another landmark case of Bharat Bank Ltd. v. Employees,5 the Supreme Court has held that the tribunals are not full-fledged courts, though they possess many of the tapping's of a court and they exercise the quasi-judicial functions. A tribunal is an adjudicating body. It exercises judicial powers as distinguished from purely administrative functions and decides controversies between the parties.

Administrative Tribunals

In pursuance of administrative law, there can arise disputes. These disputes require adjudication. There are administrative agencies other than the courts to adjudicate such issues arising in the course of day-to-day administration.

Administrative adjudication is the resolution of quasi-judicial matters by administrative agencies or commissions established for the purpose. A number of technical issues and' disputes emerge in the day-to-day administration. The ordinary courts do not have the technical expertise and it becomes quite dilatory and costly to dispense with cases of administrative nature.

It is only the administrative agencies, which are capable of looking into the matters of administrative exigencies. These administrative agencies with the power to adjudicate the disputes arising out of administrative action or inaction are called administrative tribunals.

According to Servai, 'the development of administrative law in a welfare state has 'made administrative tribunals a necessity'. In India, and in many other countries, there has been a steady proliferation of administrative tribunals of various kinds. They have, indeed, become a permanent part of the law adjudication machinery of the country. As a system of adjudication, they have come to stay, and their number is constantly on the increase.

Administrative tribunals are authorities outside the ordinary court system, which interpret and apply the laws when acts of public administration are questioned in formal suits by the courts or by other established methods. In other words, they are agencies created by specific enactments adjudicate upon disputes that may arise during implementation of the provisions the relevant enactments. They are not a court nor are they an executive body. Rather they are a mixture of both.

They are judicial in the sense that the tribunals have to decide facts and apply them impartially, without considering executive policy. They are administrative because the reasons for preferring them to the ordinary courts of law are administrative reasons. They are established by the executive in accordance with statutory provisions.

They are required to act judicially and perform quasi-judicial functions. The proceedings are deemed to be judicial proceedings and in certain procedural matters they have powers of a civil court. They are not bound by the elaborate rules of evidence or procedures governing the ordinary courts. They are independent bodies and are only required to follow the procedure prescribed by the relevant law and observe the principles of 'Natural Justice'.

They do not follow the technicalities of rules of procedure and evidence prescribed by the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and Evidence Act respectively. The administrative tribunals may be more appropriately defined as specially constituted authorities established by law to settle the disputes between the citizen and administration.

Difference Between Courts And Administrative Tribunal

It should be noted that the Administrative Tribunal is distinct from a court. Here are the fundamental distinctions between a court and administrative tribunal:
Court: The judges serving in regular courts possess full independence when it comes to their tenure, terms, conditions of service, and so on, separate from the executive branch. Their role as presiding officers in courts of law necessitates their legal expertise. It is essential for a judge to maintain complete impartiality and refrain from any personal or financial interests that may influence the outcome. Moreover, judges also hold the authority to discern the legitimacy of enacted laws. The courts adhere to a consistent and unchanging judicial process.

All the regulations that govern the procedures and evidence are applicable within a court of law. The court is obligated to render impartial judgments on each matter, relying solely on the presented evidence and available records.

Administrative Tribunal: The executive, such as the government, holds the exclusive authority to decide the duration, provisions, and employment terms for the individuals serving on the Administrative Tribunal. It is plausible that the Chairperson or any other member of the Tribunal may lack formal legal education, yet they possess significant expertise in administrative matters. An administrative tribunal is responsible for settling disputes that may involve one or multiple parties. However, it does not possess the authority to determine the validity of enacted laws.

Nonetheless, the administrative tribunal has the power to make decisions. It is worth mentioning that these decisions might be influenced by subjective factors, taking into account the specific policies of the corresponding department. Unlike being bound by strict rules, an administrative tribunal operates under the guiding principles of justice. Consequently, it is not obligated to adhere to a standardized process when exercising its powers of adjudication.

Reasons For The Growth Of Administrative Tribunals

There are numerous factors contributing to the expansion of administrative tribunals.
Firstly, these tribunals, which administer justice in administrative affairs, arose as a consequence of the Welfare State. In the late 18th and 19th centuries, when the doctrine of 'laissez-faire' prevailed, the courts acted as protectors of individual citizens' rights and freedoms. However, occasionally, they prioritized safeguarding citizens' rights even at the cost of state authority.

With the introduction of the Welfare State, the focus shifted towards social interests taking precedence over individual rights. As collective control over employment conditions, living standards, and basic necessities of the people increased, there emerged a necessity for a more suitable decision-making process that could effectively address the social demands of the time, unlike the extensive and expensive judicial system provided by the courts. Essentially, the "judicialization of administration" became a potent tool for implementing social policies and legislation.

Secondly, considering the swift expansion and growth of the industry, trade, and commerce, the existing traditional courts are inadequate to handle the escalating workload. As a result, there is a significant delay in reaching verdicts, which obstructs the resolution of cases. Therefore, multiple administrative tribunals have been established in the country, as they possess the capacity to process cases swiftly, cost-effectively, and efficiently in comparison to the conventional courts.

Thirdly, the conventional courts face challenges in delivering proper justice in complex cases due to their intricate procedures, legalistic forms, and mindset. Judges, who have received training in legal principles and jurisprudence, lack the expertise to comprehend the technical issues arising from complicated modern economic and social processes. Resolving such problems necessitates administrators with specialized knowledge, who can carefully analyze and address them. Hence, the establishment of administrative tribunals has become indispensable to meet this requirement.

Fourthly, numerous situations call for immediate and decisive action to safeguard the interests of the citizens. Instances include enforcing safety regulations in local mines, preventing illicit transactions involving foreign currency, and countering unjust business practices. Dealing with such cases through regular courts would result in substantial financial losses to the state treasury and undermine national interests. However, by entrusting these matters to administrative courts led by experts, prompt and fair action can be ensured.

Need For Establishment Of Tribunal & Provisions Under Constitution

The creation of specialized Administrative Tribunals to handle matters related to services was foreseen to have multiple advantages. It would not only decrease the workload of different courts, allowing them to effectively deal with other cases, but it would also ensure quick resolution of complaints for individuals falling under the jurisdiction of these tribunals. The Law Commission acknowledged the benefits of such tribunals as early as 1958, mentioning their ability to expedite proceedings, lower costs, simplify procedures, and utilize expert knowledge.

The importance of these tribunals can be understood from the fact that the Constitution of India has been amended to grant Parliament the power to establish them through legislation for specific subjects. The Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 introduced a new Part XIV-A, consisting of Article 323-A and 323-B, which deals with the establishment of Administrative Tribunals to resolve disputes on various matters.

The intention behind this addition was to tackle the increasing backlog of cases in High Courts and ensure prompt resolution of service matters, revenue matters, and other matters of special importance considering socio-economic development and progress. These provisions aim to strengthen the Tribunal system in the country.

Article 323-A empowers Parliament to pass laws that permit Administrative Tribunals to resolve disputes and handle complaints regarding the recruitment and terms of employment for individuals appointed to public services and positions related to the affairs of the Union, States, local or other authorities within India's territory, or entities controlled by the Government of India.

The provisions of Article 323-A take precedence over any other provision in the Constitution or any other law. Article 323-B has a wider scope. It states that the relevant legislature may pass laws enabling tribunals to resolve disputes, handle complaints, or address other offenses concerning the matters listed therein, provided that the legislature has the authority to make laws on those subjects.

Explaining the object, the Supreme Court in T. Sudhakar Prasad v. Govt. of A.P.,8 observed that the Parliament was motivated to create new adjudicatory fora to provide new, cheap and fast track adjudicatory systems and permitting them to function by tearing of the conventional shackles of strict rule of pleadings, strict rule of evidence, tardy trials, three/four tier appeals, endless revisions and reviews, creating hurdles in fast flow of stream of justice.

The Central Administrative Tribunal throughout India comprises a total of 19 Benches and 19 Circuit Benches. To ensure comprehensive coverage, the Government of India has officially notified 215 organizations, including various Ministries and Departments of the Central Government, under section 14 (2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

This measure aims to bring these organizations within the purview of the Central Administrative Tribunal as needed. Moreover, the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal handles cases concerning the government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi.

The Central Administrative Tribunal is headed by Hon'ble Chairman Sh. Justice Ranjit Vasantrao, retired Chief Justice, Meghalaya High Court. There are 69 Hon'ble Members in various Benches of the Tribunal out of which 34 are Judicial Members and 35 are Administrative Members.

After the establishment of the Tribunal in 1985, it received 13,350 pending cases on transfer from the High Courts and subordinate Courts under section 29 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. Since its inception in 1985, up to 30th June, 2022, about 8,82,085 cases were instituted in the Tribunal. Out of those, 8,04,272 cases have already been disposed of. That is a disposal rate of 91.18%.

Establishment Of Administrative Tribunals

Section 4 of the Act provides for the establishment of Central Administrative Tribunals (CAT), State Administrative Tribunals (SAT) and Joint Administrative Tribunals (JAT).9 These tribunals are constituted by the Central Government. State Administrative Tribunals may be constituted by the Central Government on the request of the concerned State10 while Joint Administrative Tribunals may be constituted by the Central Government on the request of two or more States.11

The Central Administrative Tribunal decides the services disputes pertaining to the employees of the Central Government or employees of any Union Territory or local or other Government under the control of the Government of India or employees of a corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government. A State Administrative Tribunal decides the service disputes pertaining to the employees of the States on whose request it has been established.

Composition Of Administrative Tribunals

Section 5(1) of the Act provides that each Tribunal shall consist of a Chairman and such number of Judicial and Administrative Members as the appropriate Government may deem fit.12 The Jurisdiction, power and authority may be exercised by Benches thereof.13 A Bench of the tribunal shall consist of one judicial Member and one Administrative Member.14 The Chairman may order the composition of a Bench consisting of more than two Members, if in his opinion, it is deemed fit, for deciding any case or cases, having regard to the nature of the question involved therein.15

The appointment of the Chairman and every other member of the tribunal shall be made by the President of India after consultation with the Chief Justice of India.16 In case of a Tribunal shall be made by the President after consultation with the Governor of the concerned State.17

In Union of India v. Kali Dass Batesh,18 the Supreme Court observed that CAT is a tribunal constituted under Article 323-A of the Constitution and is expected to have the same jurisdiction as that of High Court. Consequently, Parliament has taken great care to enact, vide Section 6 and 7 of the Act no appointment of a person shall be made except after consultation with the Chief Justice of India.

Qualification
The qualifications can be discussed under the following heads:

1. Qualification for Appointment as Chairman:
   A person shall not be qualified for appointment as the Chairman unless he is, or has been, a Judge of a High Court. Provided that a person appointed as Vice-Chairman before the commencement of this Act shall be qualified for appointment as Chairman if such person has held the office of the Vice-Chairman at least for a period of two years.19
    
2. Qualification for Appointment as Administrative Members:
   A person shall be qualified as an Administrative Member if he has held for at least two years the post of Secretary to the Government of India or any other post under the Central or State Government and carrying the scale of pay which is not less than that of a Secretary to the Government of India for at least five years or any other post under the Central or State Government of India for at least five years or any other post under the Central or State Government carrying the scale of pay which is not less than that of Additional Secretary to the Government of India at least for a period of five years.
   
   Provided that the officers belonging to All India services who were or are on Central deputation to a lower post shall be deemed to have held the post of Secretary or Additional Secretary, as the case may be, from the date such officers were granted promotion or actual promotion whichever is earlier to the level of Secretary or Additional Secretary, as the case may be, and the period spent on Central deputation after such date shall count for qualifying service for the purposes of this clause.20
    
3. Qualification for appointment as Judicial Members:
   A person shall be qualified for appointment as a Judicial Member if he is or has been qualified to be a Judge of High Court or he has for at least two years held the post of Secretary to the Government of India in the Department of Legal Affairs or the Legislative Department including Member-Secretary, Law Commission of India or held a post of Additional Secretary to the Government of India in the Department of Legal Affairs and Legislative Department at least for a period of 5 years.21
   
   The Administrative Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 2007 makes it clear that the Chairman and Members appointed prior to Amending Act of 2007, on completion of either their term of service or on attainment of 65 years in the case of Chairman or 62 years in the case of Members of the Tribunal, whichever is earlier, may be considered for fresh appointment.

Proviso to Section 10A of amended Act provides that such fresh appointment could be made only when the criteria prescribed under amended Section 8 is satisfied and it is further subject to the condition that the total term of office of the Chairman shall not exceed 5 years and that of a Member, ten years.22

Jurisdiction Of Tribunals

Section 14 of the Act provides that from November 01, 1985, the Central Administrative Tribunal shall exercise all the jurisdiction, powers and authority, exercisable immediately before that day, by all courts (except the Supreme Court) in relation to the recruitment and all service matters concerning the Central Civil Servants. The expression 'Central Civil Servants' include:

• A member of any All-India Service;
• A person appointed to any civil service of the Union or to any civil post under the Union;
• A civilian appointed to any defence service or a post connected with defence;
• A person appointed to a post under any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India; or a person whose services have been placed at the disposal of the Central Government by a State Government or any local or other authority or any corporation or society or other body.

The expression "all court" in Section 14 of the Act is comprehensive enough to include the High Courts and, therefore, if the subject-matter of the claim of the respondents is held to be covered by Section 14, it must follow that the High Court is not left with any jurisdiction to deal with the same.

In case of P. Lal v. Union of India, 23 the Supreme Court held that Section 14 vests in the Tribunal the jurisdiction, power and authority earlier exercised by courts, in respect of service matters. The expression "service matters" means all matters relating to the conditions of service of government civil servants.24 The expression matters relating to "recruitment and service matters" is wide enough to cover all service matters, whether the allegation is the violation of the provisions of Article 311 or any service rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. The infringement of fundamental rights of the civil servants may be agitated before the tribunals.

Category of persons outside the jurisdiction of tribunals (Section 2)

1. any member of the naval, military or air force or of any other armed forces of the union;
2. any officer or servant of the Supreme Court or of any High Court or courts subordinate thereto;
3. any person appointed to the secretarial staff of either house of Parliament or to the Secretarial staff of any State Legislature or a House thereof.

Section 15 and 16 provide for the jurisdiction, power and authority of the State Administrative Tribunals (SAT) and the Joint Administrative Tribunals (JAT) respectively, which are similar to as that of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), however concerning the matters relating to the affairs of the respective State Government.

Whether the tribunal has power to issue any direction, order or writ under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India?
In S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India,25 the Supreme Court held that the Tribunal is a substitute of the High Court and has inherited the power to issue "any direction, order or writ under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution with respect to the service matters."

Immediately after this case, the Supreme Court in another case of J.B. Chopra v. Union of India,26 it was held that Tribunals have jurisdiction, power and authority to even adjudicate upon questions pertaining to the constitutional validity or otherwise of a rule framed by the President under proviso to Article 309. The Constitutional Amendment through Articles 323-A and 323-B excluding the jurisdiction of all courts except the Supreme Court under Article 136.

This was challenged before the Supreme Court in case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, 27 the court held that the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts is a part of the 'basic structure' of the Constitution and hence cannot be barred by the Parliament. In this case, the court held that clause 2(d) of Article 323A and clause 3(d) of Article 323B, to the extent they empower Parliament to exclude the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court under Articles 226, 227 and 32 of the Constitution, are unconstitutional. In M.B. Majumdar v. Union of India, 28 the Supreme Court has observed that the Administrative Tribunals could not be equated with High Courts.

Whether the Members of the Tribunals created under the Act are judges and their orders are judgements or decrees within the meaning of Section 2(9) of CPC?
The Supreme Court in State of T, N. v. S. Thangavel,29 observed that the Members of the tribunal created under the Act, are not judges and their orders are not judgments or decrees within the meaning of Section 2(9) of the CPC.

Whether the High Court exercise jurisdiction over a Tribunal situated outside its territorial limit? Recently, the Supreme Court has referred this matter to a larger bench.30

Procedure To Be Followed By The Tribunals

To What Court Application Lie: Section 19(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 provides that a person aggrieved by an order pertaining to any matter within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, may make an application to the Tribunal for redressal of his grievance. Rule 6 provide that an application shall be filed with the Bench within whose jurisdiction:

1. The applicant is posted for the time being in force, or
2. Where the cause of action wholly or in part has arisen.31

Application Requirements: The application shall be in such form and be accompanied by such documents or other evidence and by such fee (if any, not exceeding one hundred rupees) in respect of the filling of such application and by such other fees for the service or execution of processes as may be prescribed by the Central Government.32 The language of the Tribunal shall be English provided the parties to a proceeding may file documents drawn up in Hindi, if they so desire.33

Procedure After receipt of Application: On receipt of an application, the Tribunal shall, if satisfied, after such inquiry as it may deem necessary, that the application is a fit case for adjudication or trial by it, admit such application. The tribunal may, after recording its reasons, summarily reject the applications if it is so satisfied.34 The tribunal shall not admit an application unless it is satisfied that the application had availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to the redressal of grievances.

Time Period for filing an application: The tribunal shall not admit an application unless it is made within one year from the date on which cause of action arose. In case, where an appeal preferred or representation made to the Government or other competent authority, having more of redressal of grievances of the applicant.

And a period of 6 months had expired without final order having been made by such authority, the tribunal shall admit an application within one year from the date of expiry of the said period of 6 months.35 However, an application may be admitted after the limitation period of one year or the limitation period of 6 months, as the case may be, if the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period.36

Notice to Respondent: The notices to be issued by the Tribunal may be served upon the respondent by any of the following modes:

1. Service by the party itself;
2. By hand delivery through process server;
3. By registered post;
4. Through the concerned head of office of the same department.

After the receipt of notice, the respondent shall file the reply to the application within one month of the service of notice of the application on him. If the respondent fails to file reply statement within such time, then the case shall be deemed to be ready for hearing and included in the ready list for final hearing.38 In case where a reply has been filed, the applicant may file a rejoinder to the reply statement and after that the case shall be deemed to be ready for hearing and included in the ready list for final hearing.39

The Tribunal shall decide every application made to it as expeditiously as possible and ordinarily it shall be decided on a perusal of documents and written representations and after hearing such oral arguments as may be advanced.40 The Tribunal is not bound by the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. But it shall be guided by the principles of natural justice.38

Power of Civil Court: The Tribunal shall have the power of Civil Court under CPC while trying a suit:

• summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath;
• requiring the discovery and production of documents;
• receiving evidence on affidavits;
• subject to the provisions of sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), requisitioning any public record or document or copy of such record or document from any office;
• issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents;
• reviewing its decisions;
• dismissing a representation for default or deciding it ex parte;
• setting aside any order of dismissal of any representation for default or any order passed by it ex parte; and
• any other matter which may be prescribed by the Central Government.

No Interim Order:

Section 24 of the Act provides that no interim order shall be made on, or in any proceedings relating to, an application. However, under the following circumstances, an interim order can be passed by the Tribunal where:

• Copies of such application and of all documents in support of the plea for such interim order are furnished to the party against whom such application is made or proposed to be made; and
• Opportunity is given to such party to be heard in the matter.

The final decision of the Tribunal shall be described as "Order".40 Every order of the Tribunal shall be signed by the Member or Members constituting the Bench, which pronounced the order.

Whether the Chairman of Central Administrative Tribunal can grant stay proceedings pending before a larger bench of High Court?
Explaining the scope of the powers of the Chairman of CAT, the Supreme Court in case of All India Institute of Medical Sciences v. Sanjiv Chaturvedi41 observed that Section 25 makes it clear that the Chairman deciding a question of whether a matter should be transferred from one Bench to another cannot grant interim stay of proceedings, there being no power conferred on the Chairman under the said section to pass such interim stay. The court further, held that the Chairman cannot interfere with the functioning of the Benches or tinker with its orders by passing interim orders in a transfer petition.

Whether the Amendment is Constitutionally valid?
The constitutional validity of the Amendment Act was challenged in A.K. Behra v. Union of India,42 the Apex Court by 2:1 upheld the constitutional validity of the impugned amendment and dismissed the writ petition.

Conclusion
Given the rising significance of administration in the lives of citizens, it is crucial for administrative tribunals to play a pivotal role in resolving citizens' grievances. Throughout this unit, we have analyzed the essence of administrative tribunals and the various reasons that underscore their utmost importance.

Our country has established diverse types of administrative tribunals to address a wide array of issues, including the settlement of disputes and complaints involving public servants, resolution of consumer disputes, industrial conflicts, and matters related to income tax, among others. These tribunals offer enhanced flexibility in dispensing justice and alleviate the burden on the courts.

However, they do encounter certain limitations. At times, they infringe upon the principles of natural justice, lack a consistent approach to delivering justice, and often lack a comprehensive understanding of legal or judicial work. Nonetheless, with the implementation of specific safeguards, we can rectify some of these limitations. It is imperative that individuals with legal training and experience are appointed to serve on administrative tribunals. Additionally, it is crucial to establish and enforce a code of judicial procedures to regulate their operations effectively.

End-Notes:

1. S.R. Maheshwari, Indian Administrative 62 (Orient Longman Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi,2001).
2. Nageswara Rao & G.B. Reddy, "Doctrine of Judicial Review and Tribunals: Speedbreakers Ahead", Journal of the Indian Law Institute 418 (1997).
3. C.K. Thakkar, Administrative Law 226 (Eastern Book Company, Lucknow, 1996)
4. Black Law's Dictionary
5. AIR 1954 SC 520.
6. Sunil Chhabra, Administrative Tribunals (Deep & Deep Publications, New Delhi,1990).
7. Paras Diwan, Administrative Law (Allahabad Law Agency, Allahabad, 1995).
8. JT 2001 (1) SC 201.
9. The Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 s. 4.
10. Id., s. 4(2).
11. Id., s. 4(3), 4(4).
12. Id., s. 5(1).
13. Ibid.
14. Id., s. 5(2).
15. Id., s. 5(4).
16. Id., s. 6(3).
17. Id., s. 6(4).
18. AIR 2006 SC 789.
19. The Administrative Tribunal (Amendment) Act, 2006, s. 6(1).
20. Id., s. 6(2)(a).
21. Id., s. 6(2).
22. Id., s. 10A.
23. AIR 2003 SC 1499.
24. Supra note at 9, s. 3(q).
25. (1987) 1 SCC 124.
26. AIR 1987 SC 357.
27. AIR 1995 SC 1151.
28. AIR 1990 SC 2263.
29. 1997 (2) SCC 349.
30. Union of India v. Sanjiv Chaturvedi & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 162.
31. The Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedural) Rules 1987.
32. Supra note at 9 s. 19(2).
33. Supra note at 31, rule 3.
34. Supra note at 9 s. 19(3).
35. Id., s. 21(1).
36. Id., s. 21(3).
37. Supra note at 31, rule 11(1).
38. Id. 1987, rule 31.
39. Id. rule 32.
40. Id. s. 22(1).
41. 2019 SCC OnLine SC, 118.
42. (2010) 5 SCALE 472.