Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010233822017 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : MFA/71/2017 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, N.F. RAILWAY, MALIGAON, GUWAHATI-11 VERSUS M/S SUNRISE TRADERS FANCY BAZAR, JAIL ROAD, GUWAHATI-1, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.D K DEY, Advocate for the Respondent : MR.A GOYAL, MR.K P MAHESWARI ,MS.M SHARMA BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER Date : 23.06.2026 Heard Mr. D.K. Dey, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. M. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. In this appeal, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 16.12.2016, passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, in Claim Application No. 451/2000. Page No.# 2/3 3. It is to be noted here that vide the judgment and order dated 16.12.2016, the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench (‘Tribunal’, for short) had directed the respondent/appellant herein to pay the applicant/respondent herein a sum of Rs. 47,390/- along with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of original application till the date of payment, and in addition to the same, the respondent/appellant herein was also directed to pay the proportionate application fee amount of Rs. 1,846/- and legal practitioner’s fee of Rs. 1,474/-. 4. Mr. Dey, learned counsel for the appellant has raised preliminary objection in respect of sustainability of the impugned judgment and order dated 16.12.2016, passed by the learned Tribunal on the ground that the said judgment and order was passed by a single Member of the Tribunal. By referring to Section 4 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (‘Act of 1987’, for short), Mr. Dey submits that sub-section (2) to Section 4 provides that a Bench shall consist of one Judicial Member and one Technical Member, subject however, to the other provisions of the Act; and since the impugned judgment and order was passed by a Judicial Member only, without there being any Technical Member, the same is not sustainable in law, and therefore, Mr. Dey has contended to set aside the impugned judgment and order and to remand the matter back to the learned Tribunal to adjudicate the matter afresh by constituting a Bench comprising of one Judicial Member and one Technical Member. In support of his submission, Mr. Dey has referred to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amulya Chandra Kalita vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in (1991) 1 SCC 181, and also a decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court, dated 08.05.2025, in MFA No. 90/2013 (Union of India vs. M/s Shree Mahalaxmi Mills). 5. Per contra, Ms. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent, by referring to sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the Act of 1987, submits that as per the said provision, the Chairman or any other Member authorized by the Chairman in this behalf to function as a Bench consisting of a single Member and exercise the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Claims Tribunal in respect of such classes of cases or such matters pertaining to such classes of cases as the Chairman may, by general or special order, specify. And as such, she submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and order. 5.1. However, to a pointed query of this Court as to whether the Chairman, while taking up the case, had passed any general or special order, Ms. Sharma submits that no such general or special order was passed by the Chairman while taking up the aforementioned case. Then, she submits that if the Court decides to remand the matter back to the learned Tribunal on this ground, then the learned Tribunal may be directed to dispose of the matter in a time bound manner, to which Mr. Dey, learned counsel for the Page No.# 3/3 appellant has also not opposed. 6. Accordingly, taking note of the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, and also the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amulya Chandra Kalita (supra) and the decision of a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court, dated 08.05.2025, in MFA No. 90/2013, the impugned judgment and order dated 16.12.2016, stands set aside and quashed. 7. The matter stands remanded to the learned Tribunal with a direction to constitute a Bench comprising of one Judicial Member and one Technical Member and to dispose of the same after affording opportunity of being heard to both the parties. 8. As the matter pertains to the year 2017, it is provided that the aforementioned exercise has to be carried out within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 9. The Registry shall take immediate steps to send down the TCR forthwith, along with a copy of this order. 10. In terms of above, this appeal stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant