According to Servai, "the development of administrative law in a welfare state has made "administrative courts a necessity". Administrative courts are authorities external to the ordinary judicial system, which interpret and apply the laws when the acts of public administration are challenged formally by the courts or by other established methods. They are not a court or an executive body. Rather they are a mixture of both. They are judicial in the sense that the courts must decide the facts and apply them in impartial manner, without considering the executive policy. The same was also reiterated by the Central Administrative Tribunal in the case of G Mohanti v. UOI .Lakshmi Chand has laid down the following characteristics or tests to determine whether an authority is a court or not:1. The decision-making power must derive from a law or statutory provision.2. It must possess the characteristics of a court and therefore be invested with the power to summon witnesses, take an oath, compel the production of evidence, etc.3. Courts are not bound by rigid rules of evidence.4. They must exercise their functions objectively and judicially, apply the law and resolve disputes independently of the policy of the executive.5. Courts are supposed to be independent and immune from any administrative interference in the exercise of their judicial functions. HIGH COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS Powers and Jurisdictions ORIGIN OF POWERS After the coming into force of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, all judicial remedies except those of the Supreme Court under Appeals against the decisions of all the Tribunals have been lodged with the Supreme Court under the Article 136 of the Constitution. In light of our above-mentioned observations, this situation will also be changed. In the perspective we have taken, no appeal against the decisions of the Court can be proposed directly to the Court of Cassation pursuant to art. 136 of the Constitution; but, instead, the aggrieved party shall have the right to approach the High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution and, from the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court, the aggrieved party may approach this court under the 'Article 136 of the Constitution." The Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh High Court interpreted the judgment in a slightly different way and said that it applies only to the courts established under Articles 323A and 323B of the Constitution of India, therefore all courts may not follow the same rule.