RAJNISH KUMAR RAI versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS
[2023] 13 S.C.R. 701, Supreme Court of India, 2023
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Issues
[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 is that 
the WPCT No. 78 of 2021 was ﬁ led to challenge the order dated 22-
10-2021 in Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions v. Alapan 
Bandyopadhyay [Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions v. 
Alapan Bandyopadhyay, 2021 SCC OnLine CAT 3242] of the Central 
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi, (by the 
Chairman of the Tribunal in exercise of the power under Section 25 
of
the Act sitting at the Principal Bench) transferring OA No. 1619 
of 2021 to its ﬁ les. On applying the said factual position to the legal 
exposition in L. Chandra Kumar case [L. Chandra Kumar v. Union 
of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 577] it is crystal clear 
that the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal at 
New Delhi, which passed the order transferring OA No. 1619 of 2021 
vide order in Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions v. Alapan 
Bandyopadhyay [Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions v. 
Alapan Bandyopadhyay, 2021 SCC OnLine CAT 3242] falls within 
the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi.
42. Needless to say 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 Act can be judicially 
reviewed only by a Division Bench of the High Court within whose 
RAJNISH KUMAR RAI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.]
704 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 13 S.C.R.
territorial jurisdiction the Bench passing the same, falls. In fact, the 
decision in Bhavesh Motiani case [Bhavesh Motiani v. Union of India, 
2019 SCC OnLine Del 11541], relied on by the respondent is also in 
line with the said position as in that case also, as against the order of 
transfer passed under Section 25 of the Act by the Principal Bench of 
the Central Administrative Tribunal at New Delhi writ petition was 
ﬁ led by the aggrieved party only before the High Court of Delhi. This 
is evident from the very opening sentence of the said judgment, which 
reads thus : (Bhavesh Motiani case [Bhavesh Motiani v. Union of India, 
2019 SCC OnLine Del 11541] , SCC OnLine Del para 1)
“1. The present petition has been ﬁ led being aggrieved by 
order dated 30-11-2018 [Ministry of Commerce v. Bhavesh 
Motiana, 2018 SCC OnLine CAT 24765] passed by the Central 
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (“the 
Tribunal”), by which OA No. 421 of 2018 pending before the 
Ahmedabad Bench has been transferred to the Principal Bench 
of the Tribunal.”
43. In the instant case, the High Court at Calcutta has usurped 
jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition viz. WPCT No. 78 of 2021, 
challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, 
New Delhi, in Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions v. Alapan 
Bandyopadhyay [Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions v. Alapan 
Bandyopadhyay, 2021 SCC OnLine CAT 3242] ,
even after taking note 
of the fact that the Principal Bench of the Tribunal does not lie within 
its territorial jurisdiction.”
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has brought to our 
notice a coordinate Bench decision of this Court in the case of Union of 
India vs. Sanjiv Chaturvedi [(2023) 2 SCR 59] in which the point of 
law laid down in the earlier judgment passed by this Court in the case of 
Alapan Bandyopadhyay (supra) has been referred to a larger Bench. But 
so far as this Bench is concerned, we do not think judicial propriety permits 
ignoring the ratio laid down by the coordinate Bench in the case of Alapan 
Bandyopadhyay (supra) 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 we were to take a diﬀ erent view, the only course open for us
705
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 (supra). No argument has been raised before us that the decision 
in the case of Alapan Bandyopadhyay (supra) is per incurium. 
5. We have examined point involved in this petition independent of 
the ratio laid down in the case of Alapan Bandyopadhyay (supra) and 
tested the petitioner’s plea for transfer on merit. We have done so with the 
objective that in case we found any outstanding legal merit in petitioner’s 
plea for transfer of the case to Ahmedabad, we could have directed so in 
exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. 
6. But so far as the plea of the petitioner is concerned, it is not a case 
of the petitioner that the Tribunal, which is hearing the matter at present 
is without jurisdiction. He himself had instituted the application in the 
Tribunal at Hyderabad. His submission is the Bench of the Tribunal at 
Ahmedabad also has jurisdiction to hear the case, as at present he is residing 
in Ahmedabad after retirement. His submission is that in the event his transfer 
plea is not accepted, it would cause inconvenience and undue hardship. It is 
on this ground he had applied for transfer of his case from the Bench of the 
Tribunal at Hyderabad to the Bench at Ahmedabad. The matter has reached 
ﬁ nal stage of hearing in the Tribunal at Hyderabad. That appears to
be the 
main reason for which the Principal Bench of the Tribunal has rejected the 
petitioner’s transfer application. We do not ﬁ nd any ﬂ aw in such reasoning. 
In such circumstances, we decline to invoke our jurisdiction under Article 
136 of the Constitution of India in the present matter. 
7. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Headnotes prepared by : 
SLP dismissed.
Divya Pandey
RAJNISH KUMAR RAI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.]