Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2022 (1) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 1395 - SC - Indian LawsTerritorial Jurisdiction - Transfer of case to another Bench falling under the territorial jurisdiction of another High Court - cause of action for filing an Original Application Under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and determinative of the place of its filing would remain as the decisive factor? - power of judicial review - HELD THAT:- In NAWAL KISHORE SHARMA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [2014 (8) TMI 994 - SUPREME COURT], the issue concerned was with respect to the jurisdiction of a particular High Court against an authority/person residing outside its territorial jurisdiction. That question was considered with reference to Article 226(2) of the Constitution. It was held that writ could be issued if cause of action wholly or partially had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of High Court concerned even if the person or authority against whom writ is sought for is located outside its territorial jurisdiction. However, it was held that in order to maintain such a writ petition, the Petitioner had to establish that such Respondents infringed his legal rights within the limits of the High Court's jurisdiction. In NAVINCHANDRA N. MAJITHIA VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [2000 (9) TMI 925 - SUPREME COURT], again the jurisdictional issue was considered with reference to Article 226(2) of the Constitution and held that the High Court concerned would have jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition if any part of the cause of action arose within its territorial limits even though the seat of government or authority or residence of persons against whom direction, order or writ is sought to be issued is not within its territory. On a careful scanning of the aforesaid decisions relied on by the Respondent and consideration of the nature of the question that calls for decision in the case on hand and also what is observed earlier, it is found that the above decisions have no applicability for deciding the stated moot question. Going by Section 25 of the Act, extracted an independent application for transfer of an Original Application filed and pending before any bench of the Tribunal could be filed and the power to transfer lies with the Chairman. The Section mandates that if such an application is made, notice of it has to be given to the opposite party. At the same time, the Section also provides that on his motion and without any such notice the Chairman could transfer any case pending before one Bench, for disposal, to any other Bench of the Tribunal. Evidently, the said Section recognizes, the fundamental principles of justice and fair play namely that 'Justice must not only be done but it must be seen to have been done'. The law declared by the Constitution Bench cannot be revisited by a Bench of lesser quorum or for that matter by the High Courts by looking into the bundle of facts to ascertain whether they would confer territorial jurisdiction to the High Court within the ambit of Article 226(2) of the Constitution. The impugned judgment and final order passed by the High Court at Calcutta is to be held as one passed without jurisdiction and hence, it is ab initio void. Accordingly, it is set aside. The writ petition filed before the High Court at Calcutta is accordingly dismissed.
|