Summary
The Court declined to interfere with rejection of a request to transfer a service case from the Hyderabad to the Ahmedabad Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The pending larger-Bench reference did not permit departure from the existing coordinate-Bench ruling on territorial judicial review. Independently, the case’s final-hearing stage justified refusing transfer despite the petitioner’s relocation after retirement.
Issues
- Whether a pending larger-Bench reference permitted disregard of the existing ruling on territorial jurisdiction to review a Tribunal transfer order.
- Whether the petitioner’s residence and alleged inconvenience justified transfer at the final-hearing stage.
Provisions considered
- Section 25, Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985The existing precedent locating judicial review of a transfer order in the High Court territorially supervising the Bench which passed it was followed. (¶¶ 3, 4)
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaThe Gujarat High Court’s refusal to entertain the challenge to the Delhi Principal Bench’s order was upheld under the governing coordinate-Bench authority. (¶¶ 3, 4)
- Articles 136 and 142, Constitution of IndiaThe Court independently examined transfer on merits for possible exceptional relief but found no sufficient ground to intervene. (¶¶ 5, 6)
Held
- A coordinate-Bench ruling could not be ignored simply because its correctness had been referred to a larger Bench whose decision was still awaited. Judicial propriety required adherence or a further reference; no per incuriam argument was raised. (¶ 4)
- The petitioner himself had instituted the proceeding at Hyderabad and did not dispute that Bench’s jurisdiction. His subsequent residence at Ahmedabad and inconvenience did not establish a flaw in refusing transfer when the proceeding had reached final hearing. (¶¶ 5, 6)
Result
Delay condoned; special leave petition dismissed. Pending applications disposed of.