RAJNISH KUMAR RAI versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: [2023] 13 S.C.R. 701 · Decided: 06-09-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIRUDDHA BOSE · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 13 S.C.R. 701 : 2023 INSC 862
701
CASE DETAILS
RAJNISH KUMAR RAI
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20054 of 2023)
SEPTEMBER 06, 2023
[ANIRUDDHA BOSE AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad whether 
justiﬁ ed in dismissing the writ petition ﬁ led by the petitioner, relying on 
Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay [2022] 16 SCR 259 and holding 
that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the said petition which 
challenged the order of the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative 
Tribunal, Delhi rejecting the petitioner’s application for transfer of the 
proceeding from CAT, Hyderabad Bench to the Ahmedabad Bench.
Judicial Propriety – Ratio laid down by coordinate Bench in 
the earlier judgment cannot be ignored merely because it has been 
referred to a larger Bench – Plea of the petitioner that law laid down 
in Alapan Bandyopadhyay case which was relied on by High Court has 
been referred to a larger Bench in the case of Union of India vs. Sanjiv 
Chaturvedi [2023] 2 SCR 59:
Held: Judicial propriety does not permit ignoring the ratio laid down by 
the coordinate Bench in the case of Alapan Bandyopadhyay as no decision 
has come as yet from the larger Bench on the point of territorial jurisdiction 
of the High Court in a similar context – If this Court were to take a diﬀ erent 
view, the only course open would have been to refer the petition to the 
Hon’ble the Chief Justice for being adjudicated by a larger Bench, as has 
been done in the case of Sanjiv Chaturvedi – No argument has been raised 
that the decision in the case of Alapan Bandyopadhyay is per incurium – 
Further, even on merits the jurisdiction u/Article 136 cannot be invoked 
in the present matter – It is not the case of the petitioner that the Tribunal, 
which is hearing the matter at present is without jurisdiction – He himself 
702 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 13 S.C.R.
had instituted the application in the Tribunal at Hyderabad – His submission 
is that the Bench of the Tribunal at Ahmedabad also has jurisdiction to hear 
the case, as at present he is residing in Ahmedabad after retirement and if 
his transfer plea is not accepted, it would cause inconvenience and undue 
hardship – The matter has reached ﬁ nal stage of hearing in the Tribunal at 
Hyderabad and that is the main reason for which the Principal Bench of 
the Tribunal rejected the petitioner’s transfer application – No ﬂ aw in such 
reasoning – Constitution of India – Articles 136, 142. [Paras 4, 6 ]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay (2022) 3 SCC 133 : [2022] 
16 SCR 259 – relied on.
Union of India v. Sanjiv Chaturvedi [2023] 2 SCR 59 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (Civil) 
No. 20054 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.04.2022 of the High Court of 
Gujarat at Ahmedabad in SCA No.6466 of 2022.
Appearances:
Yadav Narender Singh, Adv. for the Petitioner.
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, K. Parmeshwar, Rajat Nair, Ms. Swati 
Ghildiyal, Ms. Poornima Singh, Rustam Singh Chauhan, Adit Khorana, 
Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advs. for the Respondents.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
 ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.
    Delay condoned.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 
703
3. The proceeding of which transfer is asked for, was instituted by the 
petitioner himself before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad 
and it has reached ﬁ nal stage of hearing. The petitioner’s application for 
transfer of the proceeding to the Ahmedabad Bench of the same Tribunal 
was rejected by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, 
Delhi by an order passed on 04.02.2022. The petitioner questioned the 
legality of the said order before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad 
invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But 
his plea was not accepted by the High Court relying on a judgment of this 
Court in the case of Union of India -vs- Alapan Bandyopadhyay [(2022) 
3 SCC 133]. The High Court relied on the following passage from the case 
of Alapan Bandyopadhyay (supra) in dismissing the writ petition, holding 
that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain that petition. It has been, 
inter-alia, held in the case of Alapan Bandyopadhyay (supra):-
“41. The undisputed and indisputable position in this case
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.