SC Dismisses Plea to Transfer Case for Convenience, Upholds Territorial Jurisdiction and Judicial Propriety.

The SC declined to transfer proceedings from the Hyderabad Bench to the Ahmedabad Bench, emphasizing the lack of legal merit in the petitioner's plea for transfer based on personal convenience. The SC upheld the territorial jurisdiction principle, asserting that challenges to Tribunal orders should be addressed within the jurisdiction where the Tribunal is located. The Court also reinforced judicial propriety by adhering to precedents set by coordinate Benches. Ultimately, the SC dismissed the special leave petition and any pending applications, citing no compelling legal basis for the requested transfer.

---

---

Issues involved: Transfer of proceedings, territorial jurisdiction of High Court, judicial propriety, plea for transfer on merit.

For the issue of transfer of proceedings, the petitioner had initiated the proceedings before the Central Administrative Tribunal in Hyderabad and sought a transfer to the Ahmedabad Bench, which was denied by the Principal Bench in Delhi. The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad rejected the plea citing lack of territorial jurisdiction based on a judgment of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court noted that the petitioner did not argue that the current Tribunal lacked jurisdiction, but rather sought the transfer due to personal convenience as he resided in Ahmedabad post-retirement. The Supreme Court found no legal merit in the transfer plea and declined to intervene under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of respecting the territorial jurisdiction of the appropriate High Court in matters of judicial review. It referenced previous judgments to support the principle that challenges to orders of transfer by the Tribunal must be brought before the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the Tribunal falls. The Court highlighted the need for adherence to legal procedures and jurisdictional boundaries in such cases.

On the issue of judicial propriety, the Supreme Court acknowledged a previous decision where a point of law was referred to a larger Bench for clarification. However, in the present case, the Court upheld the precedent set by a coordinate Bench and declined to deviate from it in the absence of a decision from a larger Bench. The Court underscored the importance of consistency in legal interpretation and the need for clear guidance from higher authorities on contentious legal issues.

In evaluating the plea for transfer on merit, the Supreme Court independently assessed the petitioner's request and determined that there was no compelling legal basis to transfer the case from Hyderabad to Ahmedabad. The Court considered the petitioner's arguments regarding convenience and hardship but ultimately found no justification to interfere with the Tribunal's decision. The Court exercised its discretion under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to dismiss the special leave petition and dispose of any pending applications accordingly.

---