Supreme Court of India
RAJNISH KUMAR RAIversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS
- Citation
- 2023 INSC 862
- Decided
- 6 September 2023
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- ANIRUDDHA BOSE
Holding
The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, affirming that the High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction per Alapan Bandyopadhyay and that the petitioner’s transfer request had no merit, thus no ground for invoking Article 136.
Summary
Petitioner Rajnish Kumar Rai, who had instituted a proceeding before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Hyderabad, sought its transfer to the CAT Ahmedabad bench. The Principal Bench of CAT Delhi rejected the transfer application, prompting the petitioner to challenge the order before the Gujarat High Court under Article 226. The High Court dismissed the petition, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay, holding that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to review the CAT order. The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the earlier ratio should be reconsidered by a larger bench. The Supreme Court held that the coordinate‑bench ratio in Alapan Bandyopadhyay remains binding, no larger‑bench decision exists, and the petitioner’s transfer plea lacks merit as the CAT Hyderabad bench has jurisdiction and the case is at the final stage. Consequently, the Court declined to invoke Article 136 and dismissed the Special Leave Petition.
Issues considered
- The Gujarat High Court’s territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ challenging a CAT order passed by its Principal Bench at New Delhi.
- Whether the Supreme Court should set aside the High Court’s decision and direct transfer of the CAT proceeding to the Ahmedabad bench.
- Whether the Supreme Court can invoke its jurisdiction under Article 136 in the present matter.
Legislation cited
Subjects
territorial jurisdictionHigh CourtCentral Administrative Tribunaltransfer of proceedingsArticle 136Article 226judicial proprietyspecial leave petition
Judgment
[2023] 13 S.C.R. 701 : 2023 INSC 862
CASE DETAILS
RAJNISH KUMAR RAI
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20054 of 2023)
SEPTEMBER 06, 2023
[ANIRUDDHA BOSE AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad whether
justified in dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner, relying on
Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay [2022] 16 SCR 259 and holding
that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the said petition which
challenged the order of the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Delhi rejecting the petitioner’s application for transfer of the
proceeding from CAT, Hyderabad Bench to the Ahmedabad Bench.
Judicial Propriety – Ratio laid down by coordinate Bench in
the earlier judgment cannot be ignored merely because it has been
referred to a larger Bench – Plea of the petitioner that law laid down
in Alapan Bandyopadhyay case which was relied on by High Court has
been referred to a larger Bench in the case of Union of India vs. Sanjiv
Chaturvedi [2023] 2 SCR 59:
Held: Judicial propriety does not permit ignoring the ratio laid down by
the coordinate Bench in the case of Alapan Bandyopadhyay as no decision
has come as yet from the larger Bench on the point of territorial jurisdiction
of the High Court in a similar context – If this Court were to take a different
view, the only course open would have been to refer the petition to the
Hon’ble the Chief Justice for being adjudicated by a larger Bench, as has
been done in the case of Sanjiv Chaturvedi – No argument has been raised
that the decision in the case of Alapan Bandyopadhyay is per incurium –
Further, even on merits the jurisdiction u/Article 136 cannot be invoked
in the present matter – It is not the case of the petitioner that the Tribunal,
which is hearing the matter at present is without jurisdiction – He himself
701
702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 13 S.C.R.
had instituted the application in the Tribunal at Hyderabad – His submission
is that the Bench of the Tribunal at Ahmedabad also has jurisdiction to hear
the case, as at present he is residing in Ahmedabad after retirement and if
his transfer plea is not accepted, it would cause inconvenience and undue
hardship – The matter has reached final stage of hearing in the Tribunal at
Hyderabad and that is the main reason for which the Principal Bench of
the Tribunal rejected the petitioner’s transfer application – No flaw in such
reasoning – Constitution of India – Articles 136, 142. [Paras 4, 6 ]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay (2022) 3 SCC 133 : [2022]
16 SCR 259 – relied on.
Union of India v. Sanjiv Chaturvedi [2023] 2 SCR 59 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No. 20054 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.04.2022 of the High Court of
Gujarat at Ahmedabad in SCA No.6466 of 2022.
Appearances:
Yadav Narender Singh, Adv. for the Petitioner.
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, K. Parmeshwar, Rajat Nair, Ms. Swati
Ghildiyal, Ms. Poornima Singh, Rustam Singh Chauhan, Adit Khorana,
Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advs. for the Respondents.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.
Delay condoned.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
RAJNISH KUMAR RAI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 703
[ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.]
3. The proceeding of which transfer is asked for, was instituted by the
petitioner himself before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad
and it has reached final stage of hearing. The petitioner’s application for
transfer of the proceeding to the Ahmedabad Bench of the same Tribunal
was rejected by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Delhi by an order passed on 04.02.2022. The petitioner questioned the
legality of the said order before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad
invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But
his plea was not accepted by the High Court relying on a judgment of this
Court in the case of Union of India -vs- Alapan Bandyopadhyay [(2022)
3 SCC 133]. The High Court relied on the following passage from the case
of Alapan Bandyopadhyay (supra) in dismissing the writ petition, holding
that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain that petition. It has been,
inter-alia, held in the case of Alapan Bandyopadhyay (supra):-
“41. The undisputed and indisputable position in this case is that
the WPCT No. 78 of 2021 was filed to challenge the order dated 22-
10-2021 in Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions v. Alapan
Bandyopadhyay [Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions v.
Alapan Bandyopadhyay, 2021 SCC OnLine CAT 3242] of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi, (by the
Chairman of the Tribunal in exercise of the power under Section 25
of the Act sitting at the Principal Bench) transferring OA No. 1619
of 2021 to its files. On applying the said factual position to the legal
exposition in L. Chandra Kumar case [L. Chandra Kumar v. Union
of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 577] it is crystal clear
that the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal at
New Delhi, which passed the order transferring OA No. 1619 of 2021
vide order in Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions v. Alapan
Bandyopadhyay [Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions v.
Alapan Bandyopadhyay, 2021 SCC OnLine CAT 3242] falls within
the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi.
42. Needless to say that the power of judicial review of an order
transferring an original application pending before a Bench of the
Tribunal to another Bench under Section 25 of the Act can be judicially
reviewed only by a Division Bench of the High Court within whose
704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 13 S.C.R.
territorial jurisdiction the Bench passing the same, falls. In fact, the
decision in Bhavesh Motiani case [Bhavesh Motiani v. Union of India,
2019 SCC OnLine Del 11541], relied on by the respondent is also in
line with the said position as in that case also, as against the order of
transfer passed under Section 25 of the Act by the Principal Bench of
the Central Administrative Tribunal at New Delhi writ petition was
filed by the aggrieved party only before the High Court of Delhi. This
is evident from the very opening sentence of the said judgment, which
reads thus : (Bhavesh Motiani case [Bhavesh Motiani v. Union of India,
2019 SCC OnLine Del 11541] , SCC OnLine Del para 1)
“1. The present petition has been filed being aggrieved by
order dated 30-11-2018 [Ministry of Commerce v. Bhavesh
Motiana, 2018 SCC OnLine CAT 24765] passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (“the
Tribunal”), by which OA No. 421 of 2018 pending before the
Ahmedabad Bench has been transferred to the Principal Bench
of the Tribunal.”
43. In the instant case, the High Court at Calcutta has usurped
jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition viz. WPCT No. 78 of 2021,
challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
New Delhi, in Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions v. Alapan
Bandyopadhyay [Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions v. Alapan
Bandyopadhyay, 2021 SCC OnLine CAT 3242] , even after taking note
of the fact that the Principal Bench of the Tribunal does not lie within
its territorial jurisdiction.”
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has brought to our
notice a coordinate Bench decision of this Court in the case of Union of
India vs. Sanjiv Chaturvedi [(2023) 2 SCR 59] in which the point of
law laid down in the earlier judgment passed by this Court in the case of
Alapan Bandyopadhyay (supra) has been referred to a larger Bench. But
so far as this Bench is concerned, we do not think judicial propriety permits
ignoring the ratio laid down by the coordinate Bench in the case of Alapan
Bandyopadhyay (supra) as no decision has come as yet from the larger
Bench on the point of territorial jurisdiction of the High Court in a similar
context. If we were to take a different view, the only course open for us
RAJNISH KUMAR RAI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 705
[ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.]
would have been to refer the petition to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice for
being adjudicated by a larger Bench, as has been done in the case of Sanjiv
Chaturvedi (supra). No argument has been raised before us that the decision
in the case of Alapan Bandyopadhyay (supra) is per incurium.
5. We have examined point involved in this petition independent of
the ratio laid down in the case of Alapan Bandyopadhyay (supra) and
tested the petitioner’s plea for transfer on merit. We have done so with the
objective that in case we found any outstanding legal merit in petitioner’s
plea for transfer of the case to Ahmedabad, we could have directed so in
exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
6. But so far as the plea of the petitioner is concerned, it is not a case
of the petitioner that the Tribunal, which is hearing the matter at present
is without jurisdiction. He himself had instituted the application in the
Tribunal at Hyderabad. His submission is the Bench of the Tribunal at
Ahmedabad also has jurisdiction to hear the case, as at present he is residing
in Ahmedabad after retirement. His submission is that in the event his transfer
plea is not accepted, it would cause inconvenience and undue hardship. It is
on this ground he had applied for transfer of his case from the Bench of the
Tribunal at Hyderabad to the Bench at Ahmedabad. The matter has reached
final stage of hearing in the Tribunal at Hyderabad. That appears to be the
main reason for which the Principal Bench of the Tribunal has rejected the
petitioner’s transfer application. We do not find any flaw in such reasoning.
In such circumstances, we decline to invoke our jurisdiction under Article
136 of the Constitution of India in the present matter.
7. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Headnotes prepared by : SLP dismissed.
Divya Pandey
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "territorial jurisdiction"Sign in to search