Rajnish Kumar Rai S/O S. R. Rai, ... vs Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 4275 Guj

      C/SCA/6466/2022                                  ORDER DATED: 20/04/2022




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6466 of 2022

==========================================================
                    RAJNISH KUMAR RAI S/O S. R. RAI, I.P.S.
                                  Versus
                              UNION OF INDIA
==========================================================
Appearance:
RAHUL SHARMA(8276) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR DEVANG VYAS, ASG, with MR HARSHEEL D SHUKLA(6158) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MS MANISHA LAVKUMAR, GP for the Respondent(s) No. 4
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
       and
       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE

                               Date : 20/04/2022

                        ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA)

Heard learned advocate Mr.Rahul Sharma for the petitioner, learned Additional Solicitor General Mr.Devang Vyas with learned advocate Mr.Harsheel Shukla for respondent Nos.1 and 2 whereas learned Government Pleader Ms.Manisha Lavkumar appears for the respondent No.4 State.

2. The challenge in this Special Civil Application was directed against order dated 4.2.2022 passed by the Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi. The impugned order reads as under.

"This Transfer Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking transfer of OA No.793 of 2017 from Hyderabad Bench to Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal on the ground that presently he is residing at Ahmedabad and due to prevailing Covid-19 situation, he is unable to pursue the case before Hyderabad Bench.

C/SCA/6466/2022 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2022

Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and prayed that the PT may be dismissed on the sole ground that the OA pending before Hyderabad Bench, is at the final stage of hearing.

In view of the above, I am of the view that if at this stage, the OA is transferred, its disposal will be delayed further, otherwise the OA is already listed on 10.02.2022 for final hearing.

Hence, the P.T stands dismissed."

2.1 In the main Original Application No.793 of 2017 which was sought to be transferred from Hyderabad Bench to the Ahmedabad Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal involved controversy about the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner.

2.2 On 4.4.2022 after hearing learned advocate for the petitioner following order was passed.

"Keeping all contentions of the parties open including the issue of jurisdiction of this court to entertain the present petition, let there be Notice to the respondents, returnable on 20.4.2022."

3. When the petition comes up for consideration today, learned advocates for the respondents relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Alapan Bandyopadhyay [(2022) 3 SCC 133] to submit on the basis of the law laid down in the said decision that since the order impugned in this petition filed by the Chairman of Principal Bench, Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, the challenge to the said order would lie only to the bench situated within the territorial jurisdiction where the central bench is

C/SCA/6466/2022 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2022

located.

3.1 The identical issue of jurisdiction was considered by the Supreme Court in Alapan Bandyopadhyay (supra) holding thus,

"The undisputed and indisputable position in this case is that the WPCT No.78/2021 was filed to challenge the order dated 22.10.2021 in P.T.No.215/2021 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 O.A.No.1619/2021 to its files. On applying the said factual position to the legal exposition in L. Chandra Kumar's case (supra) it is crystal clear that the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal at New Delhi, which passed the order transferring O.A.No.1619/2021 vide order in P.T.No.215/2021 falls within the territorial jurisdiction of High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. 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 underSection 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. In fact, the decision in Bhavesh Motiani's case (supra), 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:

"The present petition has been filed being aggrieved by order dated 30.11.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal

C/SCA/6466/2022 ORDER DATED: 20/04/2022

Bench, New Delhi (the 'Tribunal'), by the O.A.No.421/2018 pending before the Ahmedabad Bench has been transferred to the Principal Bench of the Tribunal."

In the instant case, the High Court at Calcutta has usurped jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition, viz., WPCT No.78/2021, challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, in P.T.No.215/2021, even after taking note of the fact that the Principal Bench of the Tribunal does not lie within its territorial jurisdiction. "

(Para 17)

4. The order passed by the High Court of Culcutta holding otherwise was held to be without jurisdiction by the Supreme Court treating it to be ab initio void and was set aside.

5. The facts are similar here. The impugned order is passed by the Chairman, Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, having its seat at New Delhi. The challenge thereto is sought to be lodged by filing petition before this High Court, which does not have the territorial jurisdiction.

6. In view of the above law laid down, the present petition is dismissed without going into the merits of the case of the either side on the ground that the challenge would lie to the High Court situated within the territorial jurisdiction where the principal bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal is located which has passed the impugned order.

7. Petition is dismissed as above. Notice is discharged.

(N.V.ANJARIA, J)

(SAMIR J. DAVE,J) Manshi