1 wp5888-11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5888/2011 (SHRIRAM DHONDU BAGADE & ANOTHER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA, SOUTH-EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY BILASPUR, CHHATISGARH & ANOTHER) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.B. Dhande, counsel for the petitioners. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : DECEMBER 17 , 2011 . By this petition, the petitioners impugn the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal on 26.07.2011 as also the order dated 21.09.2011 permitting the respondent no.1 to examine the witnesses. The petitioners had preferred a claim under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lacs) in view of the death of their son in the railway accident. The parties adduced the evidence and when the matter was posted for arguments after the written notes of arguments were filed, the Railway Claims Tribunal directed the respondent no.1 to produce the witnesses. The petitioners were aggrieved by the said order and applied for setting aside the order. The Railway Claims Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 21.09.2011, rejected the application. 2 wp5888-11 The order cannot be set aside on the ground of illegality or perversity. In view of the provisions of the Act of 1987 and specially Section 18 thereof, it is clear that the Tribunal was not bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure and was required to be guided by the Principles of Natural Justice and the other provisions of the Act and the Rules. There is nothing in the Rules which prevented the Tribunal from permitting the respondent no.1 from examining the witnesses. For a fair trial, the Tribunal must have passed the impugned order dated 26.07.2011. Since the witness, which was examined by the respondent no.1, was not on duty on the date of incident, the Tribunal directed the respondent no.1 to produce the witness, who was present on duty with a view to bring out the truth in the matter. In view of the provisions of Section 18 of the Act of 1987, it is clear that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to pass such an order in the interest of justice. Since the petitioners were not precluded from cross-examining the witnesses of the respondent no.1, they could not have been aggrieved by the orders. The impugned orders cannot be interfered with, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE