HC flays move to undermine Tribunal’s independence

In fact, the note circulated by a deputy secretary of the Finance Department on the issue pointed out that “some matters could have been decided in favour of the State’s revenue”, by the Tribunal member and since that was not forthcoming, no extension in service should be given to him.

“We express our strong disapproval to the manner in which the matter was decided. All that the note says is that the Tribunal could have decided in favour of the revenue. Is this theway your State’s secretaries work? Don’t you want your Tribunals to be independent?” Justice Shah enquired of the counsel for the State, advocate Suraj Shah.

The matter related to a request made by the Sales Tax Tribunal member Kamat who sought an extension when he retired from services at the age of 58 this year which was refused. Aggrieved, Kamat then moved the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, where the MAT directed the State’s Law and Judiciary department to “decide the matter afresh”.

Accordingly, a high powered committee headed by the chief secretary, including secretary of the Finance Department and the Law and Judiciary Department was constituted.

However, as the HC bench discovered, the committee never had a meeting on the subject. The note, written by a deputy secretary of the Finance Department on the matter, was in fact circulated among the members who signed them on different days, as the signatures showed.

“We find that the direction of MAT was followed `without any application ofmind’, and only on an analysis of the deputy secretary, which says nothing adverse, except that some matters could have been decided by the Tribunal in favour of the Government,” the bench noted in its order.

“How can you refuse extension unless his integrity is doubted or unless he has given orders that are patently illegal,” Justice Shah enquired. Senior advocate R V Desai appearing for the petitioner pointed out that Kamat had never sat in the Tribunal singly, but was always with another judge, on a division bench. “The other member has been given an extension till the age of 64 years,” he stated, “..and if the Tribunal judgments were wrong, the state could have appealed against them”.

Recording its disapproval, the bench in its order noted that “it is rather strange that high powered committees should act on a note prepared by a department deputy secretary, without discussing the serious issue involved in the case”. The HC has now sent the matter back to the State Government committee for arelook and has directed that the papers presented to the court on the matter be given to the petitioner for an inspection.