- (1.) Paragraph 6 of the application made before us reads as follows: "6. That the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 have submitted their written reply before the learned Tribunal on 20.7.2011 and applicant filed rejoinder and supplementary rejoinder before the learned Tribunal. The matter came up for final hearing on 18.8.2011 before the learned Tribunal, Calcutta Bench presided over by the Hon'ble Member of the Bench Mr. Shankar Prasad and the matter was fully heard on 18.8.2011 in presence of counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 and the ld. Counsel appeared for the petitioner and none appeared on behalf of other respondents and till today, the learned Tribunal did not deliver the judgment and/or disposed of the said original application filed by the petitioner." The correctness of the contents of paragraph 6 quoted above was not disputed by Mr.Mandal, learned Govt. Pleader appearing for the respondents No.1,2,4,5 and 6. Rest of the respondents were not represented before the Tribunal nor did they appear before us.
(2.) Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the interest of his client he has the onerous as well as unpleasant task of bringing to the notice of High Court that the judgment in the aforesaid matter has inordinately been delayed causing great prejudice to his client. He drew our attention to rule 105 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Rules of Practice, 1993 which in so far as material for our purpose reads as follows: " 105. Pronouncement of order (a) The Bench shall as possible pronounce the order immediately after the hearing is concluded. (b) When the order are reserved, the date for pronouncement not later than 3 weeks shall be fixed. The date so fixed shall not be changed except due notice to all parties/counsel. " He also drew our attention to sub-section (2) of section 22 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 which provides as follows: "22(2) A Tribunal shall decide every application made to it as expeditiously as possible and ordinarily every application shall be decided on a perusal of documents and written representation and (after hearing such oral arguments as may be advanced)." He submitted that in spite of the urgency impressed upon the learned Tribunal by statute and the rules, care was not taken to deliver the judgment promptly. He has, as such, approached this Court invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. We are told that, as a matter of practice, the judgments are not promptly delivered by the Tribunal. That is also supported by learned advocates present in Court while this matter was being heard. Mr.Mandal, learned Govt. Pleader did not dispute the fact that the judgment is pending for a long time and the information furnished in paragraph 6 quoted above are factually true.
(3.) The mandate of the legislature appearing from sub-section (2) of section 22 needs no elaboration nor is it necessary to remind anyone that speedy justice is the need of the hour. There is a well known maxim that justice delayed is justice denied. There is equally well known maxim that justice hurried is justice buried. Therefore, a balance has to be struck. Neither a matter should be decided in hurry nor a matter should be kept pending for a period longer than reasonably required. By keeping a matter pending for months together, the Court or the Tribunal may unknowingly be helping the unscrupulous litigant. Fairness also demands that the matter already heard are disposed of without loss of time otherwise the Court or the Tribunal is likely to become party to the proverbial delays of law. We are not suggesting that the judgments in all case must be delivered within the time provided for in the rules. But we are definitely of the view that the judgments, as a rule should be delivered within the time stipulated by the rules and omission to do so should be an exception. Only an exceptional case may require longer time for proper analysis of the facts or research in the intricacies of law. One of the principles to be kept in mind is that justice should not only be done but justice also should appear to have been done. The litigant should not be left to nurture a grievance that by delaying the judgment, he has been denied the fruits of the litigation nor should he have the occasion to nurture a grievance that by delaying the judgment the wrong or the misery to which he/she was exposed has been prolonged. The State occupies the position, in law, of a parent. The theory of parens patriae was applied by the Apex Court in the case of Charan Lal Sahu Vs. Union of India reported in 1990 (1) SCC 613 which literally means the father of the country. In All India Judges Association Vs. Union of India, reported in 1993(4) SCC 188 : 1993(6) SLR 37 (SC) the Apex Court observed that the members of the judiciary "exercise the sovereign judicial power of the State.";