The Bombay High Court on Wednesday flagged the issue of staff vacancies in Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACT)in Mumbai and said that such vacancies should be filled up to ensure efficient functioning of the tribunals [Bar Association of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal v. State & Ors.].
A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande made the observation while permitting the MACT Bar Association to make a fresh representation to the State government on staff vacancies.
“The supporting staff is the backbone of the functioning of the court, and in the absence of important posts being filled, the functioning of the court is hampered. To ensure efficient working of all the presiding officers, presently eight in number, they must be supported by adequate staff attached to each court,” the Court said.
The Court said that it would be appropriate for the association to submit a representation with updated details of vacancies.
The Court also granted liberty to the bar body to file a petition before the High Court if no action is taken by the government.
“If no action is taken, the association is at liberty to approach this Court by filing a proper writ petition,” the Court said.
The Court was hearing a petition filed in 2022 flagging vacancies in MACTs including absence of presiding officers.
The Bench on Wednesday noted that the grievance regarding presiding officers no longer survived since all eight MACT courts in Mumbai are now functional.
“The grievance of the petitioner of not having presiding officers for the vacant courts does not survive,” the Court observed.
However, it acknowledged continuing concerns over staff shortages.
During the hearing, the bench raised objections to the drafting of the petition and flagged a lack of clarity on the appointing authority.
It also questioned the petitioner about the parties added as respondents.
“You don’t even know which department is the appointing authority of the staff,” the Court remarked.
The petitioner argued that there are around 117 vacancies and described the issue as one of substantial public importance.
The Court termed the petition as "half-baked" after noting that it did not give concrete details of the vacancies.
“This petition is half-baked. What are the vacancies?” the Court asked.
Despite the criticism, the bench acknowledged the underlying issue.
“We understand your problem is genuine. We can only help you if you bring the proper authorities before us,” the Court stated.
Hence, it directed the bar body to first submit a representation to the State.
The Court directed the State government to consider the representation with utmost urgency and also granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court if the issue remains unresolved.
The Court emphasised that any fresh petition must be supported by adequate data.