2022 (1) TMI 1395 - SC - Indian Laws

Territorial Jurisdiction Rules Under Article 226(2) Don't Apply to Transfers Under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act

The SC held that the territorial jurisdiction principles under Article 226(2) of the Constitution, as established in prior rulings, do not apply to the ... Territorial Jurisdiction - Transfer of case to another Bench falling under the territorial jurisdiction of another High Court - 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? - power of judicial review - HELD THAT:- In NAWAL KISHORE SHARMA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [2014 (8) TMI 994 - SUPREME COURT], the issue concerned was with respect to the jurisdiction of a particular High Court against an authority/person residing outside its territorial jurisdiction. That question was considered with reference to Article 226(2) of the Constitution. It was held that writ could be issued if cause of action wholly or partially had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of High Court concerned even if the person or authority against whom writ is sought for is located outside its territorial jurisdiction. However, it was held that in order to maintain such a writ petition, the Petitioner had to establish that such Respondents infringed his legal rights within the limits of the High Court's jurisdiction. In NAVINCHANDRA N. MAJITHIA VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [2000 (9) TMI 925 - SUPREME COURT], again the jurisdictional issue was considered with reference to Article 226(2) of the Constitution and held that the High Court concerned would have jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition if any part of the cause of action arose within its territorial limits even though the seat of government or authority or residence of persons against whom direction, order or writ is sought to be issued is not within its territory. On a careful scanning of the aforesaid decisions relied on by the Respondent and consideration of the nature of the question that calls for decision in the case on hand and also what is observed earlier, it is found that the above decisions have no applicability for deciding the stated moot question. Going by Section 25 of the Act, extracted an independent application for transfer of an Original Application filed and pending before any bench of the Tribunal could be filed and the power to transfer lies with the Chairman. The Section mandates that if such an application is made, notice of it has to be given to the opposite party. At the same time, the Section also provides that on his motion and without any such notice the Chairman could transfer any case pending before one Bench, for disposal, to any other Bench of the Tribunal. Evidently, the said Section recognizes, the fundamental principles of justice and fair play namely that 'Justice must not only be done but it must be seen to have been done'. The law declared by the Constitution Bench cannot be revisited by a Bench of lesser quorum or for that matter by the High Courts by looking into the bundle of facts to ascertain whether they would confer territorial jurisdiction to the High Court within the ambit of Article 226(2) of the Constitution. The 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. Accordingly, it is set aside. The writ petition filed before the High Court at Calcutta is accordingly dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of High Courts in judicial review of transfer orders by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).2. Validity and interpretation of Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and Rule 6 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987.3. Appropriateness of remarks made by the High Court against the Chairman of the Tribunal.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of High Courts in Judicial Review of Transfer Orders by the CAT:The primary issue is whether the High Court at Calcutta had jurisdiction to review the order passed by the Principal Bench of the CAT in New Delhi, which transferred an Original Application (O.A.) from the Kolkata Bench to the Principal Bench. The Supreme Court emphasized that the jurisdiction for judicial review lies with the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the Tribunal issuing the order falls. This principle was reinforced by the Constitution Bench in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, which held that decisions of Tribunals are subject to scrutiny by the High Court within whose jurisdiction the concerned Tribunal falls. Therefore, the High Court at Calcutta lacked jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition challenging the transfer order issued by the Principal Bench of the CAT in New Delhi.2. Validity and Interpretation of Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and Rule 6 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987:Section 25 of the Act empowers the Chairman of the CAT to transfer cases from one Bench to another. Rule 6 of the Procedure Rules specifies the place of filing applications based on the applicant's posting or the cause of action. The Supreme Court clarified that the cause of action for challenging a transfer order is distinct from the cause of action for filing the original application. The Court noted that the Chairman's power to transfer cases under Section 25 is independent and can be exercised suo motu or upon an application by a party. The Court also highlighted that Rule 6 should not be interpreted to override the Chairman's statutory power under Section 25.3. Appropriateness of Remarks Made by the High Court Against the Chairman of the Tribunal:The Supreme Court addressed the issue of disparaging remarks made by the High Court against the Chairman of the Tribunal. The Court emphasized the need for judicial restraint and the importance of maintaining respect for judicial institutions. It referred to past judgments that caution against using intemperate language and casting aspersions against lower judiciary. The Court found the remarks by the High Court to be unwarranted and unnecessary, and thus ordered their expunction.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the judgment and final order of the High Court at Calcutta, declaring it void ab initio due to lack of jurisdiction. The writ petition filed before the High Court at Calcutta was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file the petition before the jurisdictional High Court. The Court did not make any findings on the correctness of the transfer order itself, leaving it open for consideration by the appropriate High Court. The appeal was allowed, and pending applications were disposed of.