Transfer of tribunal proceedings refused where jurisdiction was undisputed and convenience alone did not justify shifting the matter.

A request to transfer a pending tribunal proceeding from Hyderabad to Ahmedabad was rejected where the proceeding had been initiated by the petitioner at Hyderabad and had reached the final stage of hearing. The petitioner did not dispute the Tribunal's jurisdiction at Hyderabad; the claim rested instead on post-retirement convenience and alleged hardship. The Court also treated its earlier ruling on territorial jurisdiction in challenges to transfer orders as binding, finding no basis to disregard it or treat it as per incuriam. Independently of that precedent, the reasoning for refusing transfer was found unobjectionable, and the special leave petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Court should interfere with the refusal to transfer the petitioner's pending tribunal proceeding from Hyderabad to Ahmedabad, and whether the writ challenge to the transfer order could be entertained in light of the territorial jurisdiction principle.

Analysis: The petitioner's transfer request was declined because the original proceeding had been instituted by him at Hyderabad and had already reached the final stage of hearing. The Court noted that the petitioner did not dispute the Tribunal's jurisdiction at Hyderabad; his grievance was based on convenience after retirement and alleged hardship. The Court also noted that the earlier ruling on territorial jurisdiction in a challenge to a transfer order from the Principal Bench of the Tribunal remained binding for the time being, and no basis was shown to disregard it or to treat it as per incuriam. Independently of that precedent, the Court found no infirmity in the reasoning that led to rejection of the transfer request.

Conclusion: The Court declined to interfere and dismissed the special leave petition.

---