THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9681 of 2008 O R D E R: The petitioner is a religious institution registered under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’). It is endowed with vast extents of landed property, which, in turn, was leased to I.D.L. and I.D.L. Chemicals Limited. The name of this company has undergone changes from time to time. It is stated that now it is Gulf Oil Corporation Limited. The petitioner presented an application under Section 83 of the Act before the second respondent herein, so that necessary steps would be initiated before the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, the ﬁrst respondent herein, for eviction of the encroachers. It was pleaded that the leases in favour of original lessee were terminated and thereby, they became encroachers. The applications were veriﬁed and processed to certain extent. However, in the recent past, the A.P. State Legislature had amended Sections 83 and 87 of the Act and added Section 162. The purport of these amendments is that the power to order eviction of the encroachers under Section 83 and the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments to determine the question under section 87 is taken away. These powers are conferred upon a Tribunal to be constituted under Section 162 of the Act. The grievance of the petitioner is that on the one hand, the jurisdiction of the ﬁrst respondent is taken away under Section 83 of the Act and on the other, no Tribunal is constituted under Section 162 of the Act. The legal and factual submissions in relation to this question are advanced before this Court. Heard Sri Minikanti Laxmiprasad, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Endowments and Sri P.Venugopal, the learned counsel for the seventh respondent. It is not uncommon that the Tribunal or agencies are constituted to adjudicate the disputes arising under the relevant enactments. While in some cases, the arrangement is made at the initial stage itself, in the other cases, they are made by way of amendment. Wherever the adjudicatory procedure or process is amended, the known principle is that till the agency contemplated under the law becomes functional, the existing arrangement must continue. In fact, that is the purport of the relevant provisions of the General Clauses Act, 1897. In COMMISSIONER Of INCOME TAX v DHADI SAHU [1] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that till the adjudicatory machinery contemplated under an enactment is brought into existence, the arrangement that has been functional prior to it would continue. Similar view was taken in the earlier judgments also. The amendments to Act 30 of 1987 were caused through Act 33 of 2007. The Legislature itself was conscious of the principle referred to above and made necessary arrangement, while amending Section 87 of the Act, by adding sub-section (5). It reads as under: 87 (5): Notwithstanding anything contained in the above sub-sections, the Deputy Commissioner having jurisdiction shall continue to enquiry into and decide the disputes referred to in sub-section (1) till the constitution of the Endowments Tribunal.” However, identical provision was not added to Section 83 of the Act. The result is that while the adjudication under Section 87 continues as earlier, because of the non-existence of the Tribunal as yet, the determination of claims under Section 83 of the Act is subjected to a totally diﬀerent regime. On account of the amendment of the Section, it is made impossible for the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments to adjudicate the claims and at the same time, the corresponding powers are not exercised by any agency, because of the failure of the Government to constitute the Tribunal. This Court is of the view that it was an inadvertent omission on the part of the Legislature to incorporate a similar provision as sub- section (5) of Section 87, Section 83 also. Whatever be the reason, the hiatus cannot be permitted to continue. The reason is that one of the most operational provisions under the Act is Section 83, on account of the fact that almost every institution faces the problem of eviction of encroachers. Taking advantage of the peculiar situation, the encroachers will merrily remain in possession and the suﬀerers are the institutions. This could never have been the intention of the Legislature. Instances are not lacking where the Court would supplement the inadvertent or accidental omissions in the Legislations. It is not as if any new regime is not brought into existence on account of supply of such omissions. This Court is of the view that the reasonable approach to the issue would be to interpret Section 83 in such a manner as to keep intact the regime that existed under Section 83 before it was amended through Act 33 of 2007 till the Tribunal is constituted under Section 162. It would also be in ﬁtness of things that the State Government bestows its attention to constitute the Tribunal under Section 162 of the Act at the earliest. Since the question is purely technical in nature, this Court, advisedly is not adverting to the merits of the matter. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, directing that; (a) the jurisdiction of the authorities concerned under Section 83 of the Act, as it stood before the amendment through Section 33 of 2007, shall remain in tact and it shall be competent for them to adjudicate the matter as usual till the Tribunal provided for under Section 162 of Act 30 of 1987 is constituted. (b) The State Government shall endeavour to constitute the Tribunal, as early as possible. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:11.11.2008. Note: L.R. copy to be marked. (B/o) kdl [1] 1994(T LS) SCC 10653