CRP 275/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY The order dated 20.07.2011 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench (hereafter for short referred to as the Tribunal) in Execution Application No. A-04/2011 has been assailed in the instant petition under Article 227 of the Con stitution of India. I have heard Mr. UK Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Railway for the petitione r. For the order proposed to be passed, it is considered inessential to issue forma l notice. The factual background in short is that the opposite party No. 1 had preferred a claim application with the learned Tribunal against the Railways registering a claim of Rs.1,86,20,520/-, alleging wrong delivery of a consignment of sugar to an unauthorised person. The application was registered as OA No. 468/2004 before the learned Tribunal, which by its judgment and order dated 04.12.2006 allowed the same with a direction to the Railways to pay the claimed amount with interes t at the rate of 9% thereon from the date of the filing of the application. An a pplication for review of this decision was filed by the Railways (registered as Review Application No.1/2007), which was also rejected on 06.03.2007. MFA No.63/ 2008 laid by the Railways before this Court was also dismissed on 23.12.2010. Su bsequent thereto, the opposite party No. 1 filed an application for execution of the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal, which was registered as Executi on Application No. A-04/2011. According to the petitioner, it had no immediate k nowledge of the judgment and order dated 23.12.2010 of this Court and after it c ould learn of the same much belatedly, it applied for a certified copy thereof a nd obtained it on 28.03.2011. It has been averred that a challenge before the Ho n’ble Apex Court to the judgment and order dated 23.12.2010 of this Court is pre sently in contemplation The petitioner has averred that on receiving the notice of the execution applica tion as above, it had submitted its objection under section 22(1) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, read with section 151 as well as Order XXI Rule 26 o f the CPC with a prayer for staying the issuance of warrant of attachment. By th e order, impugned herein, the said objection has been rejected. Mr. Goswami, has argued that as the judgment and order dated 04.12.2006 as well as the review application have been heard and disposed of by a Division Bench of the Tribunal comprised of a Technical Member and a Judicial Member, the order d ated 20.07.2011 passed by a Single Bench of a Technical Member is, per se, non e st in law. The learned Standing Counsel has urged that though, this aspect was p ointed out to the learned Tribunal, the same was not taken into consideration. H e has additionally urged that the impugned order dated 20.07.2011 is, even other wise, unsustainable in law and facts and as a huge amount of public money is inv olved, it is a fit case where this Court ought to exercise its superintending ju risdiction to safeguard the interest of the Revenue. A plain perusal of the order dated 20.07.2011 does not, even, prima facie reveal that the plea relating to the composition of the Bench had been raised before t he learned Member of the Tribunal. As a matter of fact, the same does not record any such submission made on behalf of the petitioner before it. This assumes si gnificance in view of a plea taken before this Court that prior to the passing o f the order impugned, the learned counsel for the petitioner was not heard. It is not possible for this Court on the basis of the materials available on rec ord to test the substance of these pleas, as the same pertains to developments q ua the proceedings before the learned Tribunal. In the face of the order dated 2 0.07.2011, which is conspicuously silent on these aspects, it is considered appr opriate that the petitioner approaches the learned Tribunal with these grounds f or its consideration on merits. The learned Tribunal, if the petitioner approach es it with an appropriate application incorporating these contentions, would dea l with those in accordance with law. This course of action is construed to be ex pedient in the interest of securing the sanctity and certitude of a proceeding o f a Court of Law as has been accented in a plethora of judicial pronouncements. The petition, therefore, stands disposed in the above terms. No costs.