Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985: ss.19, 25 – Power of chairman to transfer cases from one bench to another – High Court setting aside the order of transfer passed by the tribunal falling within the jurisdiction of another High Court - Maintainability/sustainability of the order – Power of judicial review over order of transfer under Art. 226/227 of the Constitution – Respondent then Chief Secretary of the State of West Bengal, filed application u/s.
19 before the tribunal, Kolkata Bench challenging the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him alleging failure to attend review meeting – Pending consideration, the appellant-UOI filed petition u/s 25 seeking transfer of case from Kolkata to Delhi before the Principal Bench, Delhi – Transfer petition allowed – Challenge to, by the respondent before the High Court of Calcutta – High Court set aside the order passed by Principal Bench, Delhi while passing adverse remarks against the Chairman of the tribunal – On appeal, held: Power of judicial review of an order transferring an original application pending before a Bench of the Tribunal to another Bench u/s. 25 can be judicially reviewed only by a Division Bench of the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the Bench passing the same, falls – Division Bench of the High Court does not have jurisdiction to set aside order passed by the Tribunal falling within the jurisdiction of another High Court – Any decision of a tribunal (including u/s 25 of the Act) can only be scrutinized by a High Court having territorial jurisdiction over the tribunal – Furthermore, no exceptional ground(s) exists to make scathing and disparaging remarks and observations against the Principal Bench of the Tribunal, thus, liable to be expunged – Impugned judgment and final order passed by the High Court at Calcutta is to be held as one passed without jurisdiction and is ab initio void, and is set aside – Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 rr. 6 , r. 4(5)(a) & (b) – Constitution of India, Arts. 226 & 227. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. Once the High Court found the order impugned as one passed by the Principal Bench, the High Court should have confined its consideration firstly, to decide its own territorial jurisdiction for exercising the power of judicial review over the order or transfer in the correct perspective, without reference to the bundle of facts constituting the cause of action for application before the Tribunal, Kolkata Bench founded on the cause of action referred to in Rule 6(2) of the Procedure Rules that decides the place of filing of an O.A. [Para 15][274-A-C]
1.2 The cause of action for filing an Original Application under section 19 of the Act to redress any grievance and the cause of action for challenging an order of transfer of such an application from the Bench where it was filed and pending, to another Bench are different and distinct. [Para 6][265-F-G]
1.3 Dictum laid down in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India ‘s case clarified to mean that all decisions of tribunals would be subject to the scrutiny before a division bench of the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the particular tribunal falls. No further interpretation on the said issue is permissible. The law declared by constitution bench cannot be revisited by bench of lesser quorum or by High courts. [Para 16][276-B-F]
1.4 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 territorial jurisdiction the Bench passing the same, falls. [Para 17][277-B-C]
1.5 No exceptional ground(s) exists in the case to make scathing and disparaging remarks and observations against the Principal Bench of the Tribunal. [Para 8][269-F-G]
1.6 Accordingly, impugned judgment and final order passed by the High Court at Calcutta is to be held as one passed without jurisdiction and hence, it is ab initio void. Impugned Judgement set aside. [Para 18][277-F-G]
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC
261 : [1997] 2 SCR 1186 – followed.
Bhavesh Motiani v. Union of India 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11541 – approved.
Kusum Ingots and Alloys Limited v. Union of India & Anr. (2004) 6 SCC 254 : [2004] 1 Suppl. SCR 841; Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India & Ors. (2014)
9 SCC 329 : [2014] 7 SCR 1027; Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2000) 7 SCC
640 : [2000] 3 Suppl. SCR 82 – held inapplicable. Union of India v. A Shainamol (2021) SCC OnLine SC 962; J.K Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (2007) 13 SCC 673 : [2007] 12 SCR 136 – referred to.
Braj Kishore Thakur v. Union of India (1997) 4 SCC
65 : [1997] 2 SCR 420– relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.