DATE: 06/09/2022
BENCH: Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice C.T. Ravikumar
FACTS:
The case concerns the transfer of proceedings from the Kolkata Bench to the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (C.A.T.) in New Delhi, which was overturned by the High Court. The respondent, a senior government official, challenged disciplinary proceedings initiated against him for allegedly failing to attend a review meeting on May 28, 2021, where the Honourable Prime Minister of India assessed the damage caused by Cyclone YAAS. The Chairman of the C.A.T. exercised his authority under Section 25 of the Act to transfer the case to the Principal Bench in New Delhi. However, the High Court later criticized this decision, asserting that the Tribunal had overstepped its authority in relocating the proceedings.
The crux of the dispute lies in whether the Chairman of the C.A.T. had the authority to transfer a pending application from one bench to another. While there was no disagreement on the Chairman’s power to move an application, the High Court ruled that the transfer order was inappropriate, as it affected the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and encroached upon the authority of the High Court over matters arising within its territorial limits. The appellant contested the High Court’s ruling on multiple grounds, including allegations of mala fide intent in the decision to transfer the case. The High Court also criticized the Tribunal’s attempt to shift the proceedings, raising concerns over the impartiality and procedural fairness of the transfer order.
ISSUES:
The key legal issues in this case revolve around whether the facts presented constitute a valid cause of action for filing an Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Additionally, the case questions whether the High Court, while delivering its judgment, could treat the impugned order as already passed. Another critical issue is whether the challenge against the transfer of the case between C.A.T. benches raises concerns about maintainability. Lastly, the case examines whether the Calcutta High Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the challenge against the transfer order issued in this matter.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
It was held that Section 25 of the Act provides distinct authority for transferring an Original Application from one bench to another. The Division Bench of the High Court, which exercises territorial jurisdiction over the matter, presides over writ jurisdiction and has the power to modify or overturn orders and judgments of the C.A.T., as established in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India. Any order passed without jurisdiction is considered void from the outset. With the dismissal of the writ petition, both the respondent and the petitioner are released from further obligations in the matter.
The Supreme Court addressed the jurisdictional propriety of the Calcutta High Court in entertaining a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in New Delhi. The Court underscored that, per Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the Chairman of the CAT holds the authority to transfer cases between benches. Consequently, any judicial review of such transfer orders falls within the purview of the High Court that exercises territorial jurisdiction over the bench issuing the order. In this instance, since the transfer order originated from the Principal Bench in New Delhi, the Delhi High Court possessed the appropriate jurisdiction for review, rendering the Calcutta High Court's intervention improper.
The Supreme Court further clarified that the location of the cause of action or the residence of the applicant does not influence the jurisdiction concerning the review of administrative transfer orders. The Court emphasized that the authority to oversee and rectify decisions made by the CAT's Principal Bench resides exclusively with the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction that bench operates—in this case, the Delhi High Court. This delineation ensures a clear and orderly process for judicial review, preventing jurisdictional conflicts and promoting administrative efficiency. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Calcutta High Court and dismissed the writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate jurisdictional High Court if so advised.
ANALYSIS:
The Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay reinforces the principle of jurisdictional propriety in matters concerning the transfer of cases within the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The Court emphasized that Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, grants the CAT Chairman the authority to transfer cases between benches, and any challenge to such a transfer must be made before the High Court that has jurisdiction over the bench issuing the order. By ruling that the Calcutta High Court lacked the jurisdiction to review the transfer order issued by the CAT’s Principal Bench in New Delhi, the Supreme Court ensured that judicial review remains structured and aligned with territorial authority. This decision prevents unwarranted interference by High Courts in matters outside their jurisdiction, maintaining consistency in administrative legal proceedings.
Additionally, the ruling underscores the importance of procedural fairness and administrative efficiency in judicial oversight. The Supreme Court clarified that the residence of the applicant or the location of the cause of action does not determine the jurisdiction of High Courts in transfer-related matters. Instead, such jurisdiction is strictly limited to the territorial authority governing the CAT bench that issued the order. This interpretation prevents forum shopping and jurisdictional conflicts, thereby safeguarding the structured functioning of administrative tribunals. By setting aside the Calcutta High Court’s judgment and dismissing the writ petition, the Supreme Court upheld the CAT Chairman’s authority and reinforced the legal framework governing tribunal proceeding.
info@adhwaitha.com
