Cannot Ignore Ratio Laid In An Earlier Judgment Merely Because It Stands Referred To A Larger Bench : Supreme Court
In a recent judgement, the Supreme Court held that it cannot ignore the ratio laid down in an earlier judgment merely because the same stands referred to a larger Bench. A bench comprising of Justice Anirudhha Bose and Justice Bela Trivedi held that judicial propriety did not permit it ignoring the ratio laid down in the earlier judgement as no decision regarding the same had come out from...
In a recent judgement, the Supreme Court held that it cannot ignore the ratio laid down in an earlier judgment merely because the same stands referred to a larger Bench. A bench comprising of Justice Anirudhha Bose and Justice Bela Trivedi held that judicial propriety did not permit it ignoring the ratio laid down in the earlier judgement as no decision regarding the same had come out from the larger Bench.
The matter pertained to a proceeding in the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Hyderabad which was sought to be transferred to the Ahmedabad Bench of the same Tribunal. It may be noted that the matter had reached the final stage of hearing and the transfer was sought by the petitioner in the matter who himself had instituted the suit.
The petitioner argued that he was now residing in Ahmedabad after retirement and if his transfer plea was not accepted, it would cause inconvenience and undue hardship for him to travel to Hyderabad for the matter. His application for transfer was rejected by the Principal Bench of CAT, Delhi. The order was challenged by him before the High Court of Gujarat. However, his plea was not accepted by the High Court.
While dismissing the plea for transfer, the High Court relied on the judgement in Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay, holding that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain that petition. However, the petitioner submitted that the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Sanjiv Chaturvedi had referred Alapan Bandyopadhyay to a larger Bench. However, the court held–
"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 different view, the only course open for us 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)."
The court further noted that the main reason for which the Principal Bench of the Tribunal had rejected the transfer application was that the hearing was at a final stage before CAT, Hyderabad. Stating that it did not find any flaw in such reasoning, the Supreme Court rejected the plea.
Case Title: Rajnish Kumar Rai v. Union of India & Ors | SLP(C) No. 20054 of 2023
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 842