Delhi High Court
Bhavesh Motiani vs Union Of India & Ors. on 20 November, 2019
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment : 20th November, 2019
+ W.P.(C) 30/2019
BHAVESH MOTIANI ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. P.K. Sinha and Mr. Sushil Kumar,
Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Anil Soni, CGSC with Mr.
Devesh Dubey, Advocates for
respondents no.1, 2 and 4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
G.S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition has been filed being aggrieved by order dated
30.11.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal
Bench, New Delhi (the 'Tribunal'), by which O.A. No.421/2018
pending before the Ahmedabad Bench has been transferred to the
Principal Bench of the Tribunal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the O.A. was filed
before the Ahmedabad Bench, where the petitioner was posted at that
time and which is also his usual city of residence. He submits that
pleadings are complete and the matter is ready for arguments before the
Ahmedabad Bench. He submits that the Principal Bench is already
over-burdened with a large number of cases and the matter is likely to
get delayed by reason of the transfer. Additionally, the petitioner states
that he is now posted to the North-East and it would be highly
inconvenient for the petitioner to travel to Delhi and substantial
expenses would be incurred and time would be spent; and the petitioner
will even have to take additional leave from work.
3. Mr. Soni, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner
has been taking benefit of the interim order which was passed by the
Ahmedabad Bench. The matter has been adjourned from time-to-time
and the respondents are keen that the matter is dealt with finally. Mr.
Soni also submits that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the
Tribunal, which would require interference by this Court.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 reads as under:
"25. Power of Chairman to transfer cases from one Bench to
another.--On the application of any of the parties and after
notice to the parties, and after hearing such of them as he
may desire to be heard, or on his own motion without such
notice, the Chairman may transfer any case pending before
one Bench, for disposal, to any other Bench."
6. The respondents had made an application for transfer before the
Principal Bench at New Delhi. The grounds on which transfer was
sought were that 19 officers were transferred by a common order; and if
19 officers were to file OAs in places of their transfer, it would lead to
multiplicity of proceedings and hardship for the respondents. This
ground was considered favourably by the Tribunal. The second ground
which found favour with the Tribunal while allowing the transfer
petition was that the contesting respondents are situated in Delhi; and
hence the OA was transferred to Delhi.
7. As far as the first ground is concerned, which was accepted by the
Tribunal, admittedly the order of transfer of the 18 other officers was
passed as far back as on 26.07.2018; and no other officer(s) has filed a
proceeding challenging the transfer petition. In these circumstances, the
decision of the petitioner's prayer in these proceedings cannot depend
upon such other officers, who may have accepted the transfer order or
have not had reason to impugn the same. Besides, such other officers
may not have any ground to challenge the transfer orders, while the
petitioner has had such ground.
8. The second ground which is relied upon by the Tribunal is that the
respondents are situated in New Delhi; and if each officer files an OA
before the Bench in whose jurisdiction the concerned officer resides, it
would lead to several complications. Insofar as the matter of the
respondents being situate in Delhi is concerned, being the Government,
with presence all over the country this ground cannot be the basis to
reject the petitioner's challenge if the grounds raised by the petitioner
appear to be valid.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the counter affidavit has
been filed and the pleadings are complete before the Ahmedabad Bench
and it would cause avoidable inconvenience to the petitioner, if the
matter is transferred to Delhi. It is further submitted that the matter is
ripe for final hearing before the Ahmedabad Bench, which hearing may
have to be re-scheduled on transfer to the Principal Bench, New Delhi
which would again delay the matter.
10. Upon a conspectus of all the facts and circumstances of the case, we
find force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner. Accordingly, we set aside order dated 30.11.2018 passed by
the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also given an
assurance to this Court that no adjournment will be sought by the
petitioner before the Ahmedabad Bench.
11. We request the Tribunal at Ahmedabad to fix an early date and decide
the matter expeditiously.
12. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
13. A copy of the order will be brought to the notice of the Tribunal at
Delhi and Ahmedabad.
CM.APPL 172/2019
14. The application is disposed of in view of the order passed in the present
writ petition.
G.S. SISTANI, J
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J
NOVEMBER 20, 2019
pst
