Case Details Rajnish Kumar Rai vs Union of India & Ors.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

6 September 2023

Case No.

Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20054 of 2023

Result

Dismissed

Bench

Aniruddha Bose, Bela M. Trivedi

Citation

[2023] 13 S.C.R. 701 : 2023 INSC 862

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:

Headnote

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 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

JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J. Delay condoned. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 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

View Subscription Plans →