Jurisdiction of High Court in Transfer of Cases: Supreme Court clarifies in Union of India vs. Alapan Bandyopadhyay (2022) INSC 1 (06 January 2022)

Case Background

The case involves disciplinary proceedings initiated against Alapan Bandyopadhyay, the then Chief Secretary of the State of West Bengal, for allegedly failing to attend a review meeting chaired by the Prime Minister of India on 28 May 2021, concerning the impact of Cyclone Yaas. A charge memo dated 16 June 2021, was issued against him for not maintaining absolute integrity and devotion to duty, and for conduct unbecoming of a public servant.

Bandyopadhyay filed Original Application No. 1619/2021 before the Kolkata Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the disciplinary proceedings. Subsequently, the Union of India filed a Transfer Petition (P.T.No.215/2021) under Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the transfer of the case from the Kolkata Bench to the Principal Bench at New Delhi. The Chairman of the Tribunal allowed this petition, leading to the challenge before the High Court.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The core legal provisions discussed in the judgment are:

• Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985: This section grants the Chairman of the Administrative Tribunal the power to transfer cases from one Bench to another. It states:
  
  “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.”
• Rule 6 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987: This rule specifies where an application should be filed. It states:
  
  “An application shall ordinarily be filed by an applicant with the Registrar of the Bench within whose jurisdiction – (i) the applicant is posted for the time being, or (ii) the cause of action, wholly or in part, has arisen;”

The judgment also refers to Section 5(4)(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which allows the Chairman to discharge functions of a Judicial or Administrative Member of any Bench, and Rule 4(5)(a) and (b) of the Procedure Rules, which allows multiple persons to join in a single application if they have a common interest. The explanation to Section 19(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, defines the meaning of ‘order’ for the purposes of the said section.

Arguments

Appellant (Union of India):

• The challenge against the order passed in P.T.No.215/2021 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi, was maintainable only before the High Court of Delhi, as the Principal Bench of the Tribunal lies within its territorial jurisdiction.
• Relied on L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261, to argue that the High Court’s power of judicial superintendence is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, and decisions of Tribunals are subject to the High Court’s writ jurisdiction within whose territorial jurisdiction the Tribunal falls.
• Cited Union of India vs. A. Shainamol, IAS and Anr., (2021) SCC Online SC 962, to contend that the applicant’s residence does not determine the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
• Argued that Rule 6 of the Procedure Rules should not be interpreted to override the Chairman’s power to transfer a case under Section 25 of the Act, relying on JK Industries Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors., (2007) 13 SCC 673.

Respondent (Alapan Bandyopadhyay):

• The High Court is justified in entertaining WPCT No.78/2021 as the order of transfer passed in P.T.No.215/2021 fell within its power of judicial superintendence.
• The High Court did not take away the power under Section 25 of the Act solely because Rule 6 of the Procedure Rules was relied on.
• Relied on Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, and the decisions in Kusum Ingots and Alloys Limited vs. Union of India & Anr., (2004) 6 SCC 254, Nawal Kishore Sharma vs. Union of India & Ors., (2014) 9 SCC 329, and Navinchandra N. Majithia vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2000) 7 SCC 647, to support the contention that the High Court has jurisdiction if the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises within its territory.
• The transfer order was illegal, arbitrary, passed in violation of the principals of natural justice and on irrelevant considerations.

Submissions

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. Whether the bundle of facts that constitute the cause of action for filing an Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and determinative of the place of its filing would remain as the decisive factor in case such an application is subsequently transferred from the Bench where it was filed to another Bench of the Tribunal falling under the territorial jurisdiction of another High Court, to ascertain the jurisdictional High Court to exercise the power of judicial review qua the order of transfer passed by the Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal at New Delhi in exercise of power under Section 25 of the Act.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

On the Power of Judicial Superintendence:

• L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261 (Supreme Court of India): This case established that the power of judicial superintendence of the High Courts over Tribunals is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. It also held that the decisions of Tribunals are subject to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the Tribunal falls.

On the Place of Filing Applications:

• Union of India vs. A. Shainamol, IAS and Anr., (2021) SCC Online SC 962 (Supreme Court of India): This case clarified that the residence of the applicant does not determine the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

On the Interpretation of Rules:

• JK Industries Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors., (2007) 13 SCC 673 (Supreme Court of India): This case held that a rule made under a statute cannot override or supersede a provision of the parent statute.

On the Cause of Action:

• Kusum Ingots and Alloys Limited vs. Union of India & Anr., (2004) 6 SCC 254 (Supreme Court of India): This case discussed the meaning of “cause of action” for determining the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court.
• Nawal Kishore Sharma vs. Union of India & Ors., (2014) 9 SCC 329 (Supreme Court of India): This case held that a writ could be issued if the cause of action wholly or partially arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court.
• Navinchandra N. Majithia vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2000) 7 SCC 647 (Supreme Court of India): This case held that the High Court has jurisdiction if any part of the cause of action arose within its territorial limits.

On the High Court’s Remarks:

• Braj Kishore Thakur v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1157 (Supreme Court of India): This case emphasized the need for judicial restraint and care when making remarks against lower judiciary.

On Transfer of Cases:

• Bhavesh Motiani vs. Union of India, 2019 SCC Online Del 11541 (High Court of Delhi): This case was cited to show that a challenge to a transfer order under Section 25 of the Act was filed before the High Court of Delhi.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261*: The Court followed this authority, stating that it is impermissible to make any further construction on the issue of jurisdiction. The Court reiterated that all decisions of Tribunals will be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the concerned Tribunal falls.
• Union of India vs. A. Shainamol, IAS and Anr., (2021) SCC Online SC 962*: The Court cited this to support the contention that the applicant’s residence does not determine the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, but it was not relevant to the main issue of the case.
• JK Industries Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors., (2007) 13 SCC 673*: The Court cited this case to support the appellant’s contention that Rule 6 of the Procedural Rules cannot override the Chairman’s power to transfer a case under Section 25 of the Act.
• Kusum Ingots and Alloys Limited vs. Union of India & Anr., (2004) 6 SCC 254*: The Court distinguished this case, stating that it was not applicable to the issue of jurisdiction of High Court in transfer of cases.
• Nawal Kishore Sharma vs. Union of India & Ors., (2014) 9 SCC 329*: The Court distinguished this case, stating that it was not applicable to the issue of jurisdiction of High Court in transfer of cases.
• Navinchandra N. Majithia vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2000) 7 SCC 647*: The Court distinguished this case, stating that it was not applicable to the issue of jurisdiction of High Court in transfer of cases.
• Braj Kishore Thakur v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1157*: The Court followed this case, emphasizing the need for judicial restraint and care when making remarks against lower judiciary, and expunged the remarks made by the High Court.
• Bhavesh Motiani vs. Union of India, 2019 SCC Online Del 11541*: The Court cited this case to show that a challenge to a transfer order under Section 25 of the Act was filed before the High Court of Delhi.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to maintain the constitutional framework and the principle of judicial superintendence. The Court emphasized that the High Court’s jurisdiction is determined by the location of the Tribunal that passed the order, not by the location of the original cause of action.

The Court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by the legal principles and precedents, with a focus on the constitutional framework and the need for clarity in jurisdictional matters. The factual aspects of the case, while important, were secondary to the legal principles at stake.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument that the High Court of Calcutta had jurisdiction because the cause of action arose within its territory, but rejected it. The Court emphasized that the cause of action for the original application is different from the cause of action for the transfer order. The Court also considered the argument that Rule 6 of the Procedure Rules should be interpreted to take away the Chairman’s jurisdiction to transfer cases under Section 25 of the Act, but rejected it.

The Court’s decision was based on the constitutional framework and the need for clarity in jurisdictional matters. The Court emphasized that the High Court’s jurisdiction is determined by the location of the Tribunal that passed the order, not by the location of the original cause of action.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “All decisions of these Tribunals will, however, be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the concerned Tribunal falls.”
• “The jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts under Articles 226/227 and upon the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is part of the inviolable basic structure of our Constitution.”
• “The expression “all decisions of these Tribunals” used by the Constitution Bench will cover and take within its sweep orders passed on applications or otherwise in the matter of transfer of Original Applications from one Bench of the Tribunal to another Bench of the Tribunal in exercise of the power under Section 25 of the Act.”

Key Takeaways

• The High Court’s power to review orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal is limited to the territorial jurisdiction where the Tribunal is located.
• The cause of action for an original application is distinct from the cause of action for an order of transfer.
• The Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal at New Delhi falls under the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi.
• Orders passed by the Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, are subject to judicial review by the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Tribunal falls.
• Scathing remarks against the lower judiciary are unwarranted and should be avoided.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court at Calcutta and dismissed the writ petition filed before it. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to assail the order before the jurisdictional High Court of Delhi, if so advised.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that 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 Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, can be judicially reviewed only by a Division Bench of the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the Bench passing the same falls. This clarifies the jurisdictional aspects concerning the power of judicial review in such cases. There is no change in the previous positions of law.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the High Court of Calcutta lacked the jurisdiction to entertain a challenge against the order of transfer passed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal at New Delhi. The Court emphasized that the power of judicial review lies with the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Tribunal passing the order falls, as per the law laid down in L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261. The judgment clarifies the jurisdictional aspects related to the power of judicial review in cases involving the transfer of cases by the Central Administrative Tribunal.