Gujarat HC Nixes Revenue Tribunal's "Diametrically" Opposite Orders, Directs Chairman To 'Step Down' Pending Decision On His 'Conduct'

Observing that the state Revenue Tribunal had passed two "diametrically" opposite orders regarding delay condonation, the Gujarat High Court quashed the same after noting that the matter involved the same parties and issues in respect of a "common" decision rendered by the deputy collector in a tenancy case.

A single judge bench of Justice Nikhil S Kariel in its September 9 order further asked the State's revenue secretary to direct the 'In-Charge Chairman' to "step down on administrative leave" while the state takes a decision into his "conduct" as the chairman of the tribunal.

"Insofar as the aspect with regard to the Member concerned, the State shall take appropriate decision and inform this Court within a period of eight weeks from today by filing a separate note in the present application.The State i.e. the Secretary, Revenue Department shall also ensure that appropriate instructions to the In-Charge Chairman, Gujarat Revenue Tribunal is issued before the end of the day directing him to step down on administrative leave during the State takes an appropriate decision into his conduct as a Chairman of the Tribunal concerned," the high court directed.

Background

The high court was dealing with two writ petitions challenging orders–dated April 29 and May 20–passed by the In-Charge Chairman of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, a "common order" passed by the concerned Deputy Collector on August 31, 1996, in a tenancy matter was under challenge.

The high court said that it appeared that the In-Charge Chairman of the Tribunal has "passed two diametrically different orders", particularly on the aspect of condonation of delay.

The court said it appeared that the Tribunal in its April 29 order, did not interfere with the deputy collector's decision on the ground that there was no reason mentioned for a 22-year delay in challenging the decision.

"On the other hand, in order dated 20.05.2024 in Revision Application No.782/1996 by the very revision applicant challenging very same order, the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal had observed that since the order impugned being the order of Mamlatdar and ALT, Khambhat were against the legal position, therefore, there are in-effect a nullity and that, an order which is a nullity, could be challenged at any point of time without any reference to the Limitation Act," the high court said.

Tribunal condoned delay without separate application

The high court further observed that the tribunal had also condoned the delay in its May 20 order without there being a separate application for condonation of delay.

It said that it had come to its notice that "the concerned Member has been passing orders repeatedly which are against the settled propositions of law, which are against the statutes in question and which are bereft of any legal reasoning".

It had then asked the Advocate General for the State to examine such matters, who had submitted that the "State is looking into the issue very seriously at the highest level".

The Advocate General further submitted that the high court may pass appropriate orders on the merits of the issue, adding that the "State is on its own independently looking and examining the orders passed by the concerned Member".

"In this view of the matter, since the State is looking into the matter at the highest level, to this Court, it would appear that the State should instruct the concerned Member not to take up any further matters till the State finally opines whether the orders passed were justifiable or not," Justice Kariel said.

The court clarified that at this stage the "legality and validity" of the orders are under challenge.

It further noted that the State was inquiring into whether "behove a Chairman of the quasi-judicial body" like the Tribunal in passing such orders, and where a person who passes such orders which are contrary to the "settled proposition of law, contrary to decisions of the High Court and the Supreme Court" and which are "without any reasons whatsoever should be permitted to continue on such a senior position". This aspect, it noted, had been clarified by the advocate general.

"Under such circumstances, while the Court proposes to interfere with the impugned orders, more particularly on account of the lacunas noted hereinabove, the State is directed to comply with the statement made by learned Advocate General and whereas the State through the Revenue Department shall forthwith i.e. during the course of the day intimate to the In-Charge Chairman, Gujarat Revenue Tribunal not to hear or decide any applications and not to take any administrative decisions till the State would finally take a decision on the above aspect. In other words, the State will direct the Member concerned to go on administrative leave till the final decision is taken by the State in this regard," the high court directed.

Delay should be uniformly condoned

The high court further observed that the considerations regarding condonation of delay should have weighed uniformly; if the Tribunal did not find it appropriate to condone the delay in one matter it should have followed the same view in the other matter.

This, the court said, should have been the approach, particularly since the order of the deputy collector was a common order, parties were also the same and the issue involved was also the same and both the advocates for the respective parties "are ad idem that except for the difference in the name of the parties, the issue involved was completely identical".