- (1.)LEARNED counsel for the parties agree that this petition be disposed of at this stage without formally admitting the same.
(2.)THE following two main questions to be determined arise in this petition.
1) What is the scope and extent of powers of the J&K Special Tribunal in the matters of appeals revisions and review petitions filed before it? 2) Whether the tribunal can exercise powers of appeal, revision and review only in cases where such remedy is provided by a statute or it can entertain any appeal, revision or review entertainable by the Government or the Minister, notwithstanding the origin or source of the order against which such an remedy is availed of?

(3.)THE facts of the present case are that respondents No. 3 and 4 are employees of the petitioner - State and serving in the Ranbir Government Press. Respondent No. 4 was put in charge of computing section and given charge allowance vide order of the General Manager dated 9.7.1990. Respondent No. 3 filed an appeal against the said order before the J & K Special Tribunal ( hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ) as according to him, the order impugned in the appeal amounted to punishment to him besides his supersessionâ„¢s. He claimed that he was the only person qualified to be promoted as bill computer. After hearing the parties, a member of the tribunal allowed the appeal and directed that the matter of promotion or grant of charge allowance or any other additional remunerations be considered by the respondents in the light of the observations made in the order of the tribunal dared 2 8.1991. Respondent No. 3 thereafter filed a review petition before the tribunal in which a direction was issued that till further orders, the post claimed by the said respondent shall not be filled. The orders of the tribunal have been challenged in this petition being without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the J&K Special Tribunals Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).
In the objections filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 it is submitted that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India which, according to him, if allowed, would shake the faith of the public in the Constitution creating a total chaos in the society and frustration amongst the citizens of the country. It is submitted that as no fundamental or legal rights is stated to have been infringed, the petition was liable to be dismissed. The petition is alleged to have been filed with mala fide intention to unnecessarily drag respondent No. 3 into litigation and deprive him of his promotion by adjusting one A. K. Koul in his place arbitrarily, illegally and with mala fide intention. Respondent No. 3 has contended that he has been harassed had mentally tortured without any fault on his part.