Review petition kept pending by repeated bench reconstitution


#1

I had filed a review petition in central administrative tribunal Bombay in August 2017 against my OA dismissal.when the review petition was filed one of the member (administrative) of the division bench who passed the OA dismissal judgement was transferred to chennai bench of CAT.A new administrative member then joined CAT bombay.one original member (judicial) was still available and was the chairman of CAT.since one member of the original bench was transferred the review application was heard by one original judicial member and newly appointed administrative member.I construed it as a reconstituted bench.notice was issued to respondents and review matter was heard with as many as seven hearing dates.The respondents filed only one reply after three hearings (they were absent during first three hearings).during these hearings the written orders specifically mentioned the corum with names of original judicial member and new administrative member.The judge(judicial) reserved the judgement in March 2018 hearing but he again dereserved it and pushed the matter for another date of july to rehear both the parties again because some citations judgements in support of review application were submitted by my lawyer in CAT office after hearing and the judge wanted it to be properly indexed with synopsis which I thought was a deliberate delay tactics of the learned judge as the respondent party lawyer has no submissions/objections/aversions to make.this was done despite of the fact that the respondent lawyer had nothing to say or add whenever judges asked for his response or version (he plainly admitted of no response and remained silent in every hearing). Please remember that this original judicial member of corum was on extension (he was suppose to retire in January 2018 itself). he knew that he may get retiring orders anytime once the central government appoints a new judicial member which is what exactly happened as his extension was ended in June and a new judicial member was appointed.when my review application came in July for final disposal (pl remember the respondent lawyer has still nothing to add or object) before this bench it refused to dispose off my review application and instead ordered to reconstitute the bench and rehear the matter again which I think is a pure harassment by tribunal.The administrative member(he is now chairman) who was a part of that courum who heard this review matter for seven hearings would again be a part of a reconstituted bench and would again rehear this matter which I think is ridiculous and atrocious and making a mockery of Justice system.The tribunal is making me to suffer as I have pointed out some serious flaws and errors in the OA judgement.The OA was disposed off within four months and the judgement of review petition is not being given on one pretext or the other from last twelve months. now a reconstituted bench wants to rehear it again.The tribunal should either dismiss it if it does not find any merit in my review petition or should allow it.by not doing anything it is simply blocking my road to approach high court.this is frustrating a petitioner in worst possible way.In my view the administrative member who was a part of the coroum who heard this review matter throught the seven hearings is legally empowered to pass any order (dismissal or allowing) and there is absolutely no need to reconstitute the bench again and rehear this matter again.please remember the administrative member would again be a part of this reconstituted bench and he wants to rehear it again when he has already heard it.This is very funny as the last written order of tribunal says “The review application was heard by another bench and hence bench needs to be reconstituted”.This means that The administrative member who has signed this order and was a part of that corum who heard my review petition all throughout seven hearings doesn’t consider himself to be a part of that bench at all.
The rule is very clear with regard to review petitions.A bench has to be reconstituted only when both the members of the original division bench cease to exist.the admistrative member who heard and was part of the corum how can he totally exclude himself from the review proceedings.
all legal experts kindly comment on my analysis and specially on the aspect of administrative members functional and legal power to pass any order on my review petition without reconstituting the bench further.