MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Issue Regarding Territorial Jurisdiction of High Court Matter Referred to Larger Bench – Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Supreme Court in a recent Judgement (UIO Vs. Sanjiv Chaturvedi & Ors. D.D. 03 March 2023) that found that an important issue raised regarding the territorial jurisdiction of High Courts and the effect of Article 226(2) of the Indian Constitution. The issue affects a large number of employees and is of public importance. The court has decided that the matter should be considered by a Larger Bench due to its significance and has directed the registry to place it before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders at the earliest.

Union of India is appealing against a High Court order that allowed a writ petition and set aside an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal.

The original writ petitioner had filed a petition in Nainital CAT Circuit Bench challenging the empanelment process for officers at the level of Joint Secretary and above in the Central Government, which was based on a 360-degree appraisal system. The writ petitioner sought to quash this system, restrain the filling up of posts of Joint Secretary and above through a contract system, and direct the respondents to remove the artificial time lag created between empanelment of officers of different services.

The Union of India filed a transfer application seeking to transfer the original application filed by the writ petitioner from Nainital CAT Circuit Bench to the Principal Bench in New Delhi. The Chairman of the Tribunal ordered the transfer, but the original writ petitioner challenged this order before the High Court of Uttarakhand. The Union of India opposed a writ petition filed in the High Court of Uttarakhand and challenged its territorial jurisdiction to hear the case. The Union of India argued that the case should be transferred to New Delhi since all relevant files and papers are located there and the decision to appoint Joint Secretaries on a contractual basis was made in New Delhi. The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi. The Union of India has appealed the High Court's decision.

Supreme Court stated that the important issue raised in this appeal and that the issue involved is with respect to the territorial jurisdiction of the High Courts and the effect of introduction of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India and the statement of the Law Minister while introducing Article 226(2) of the Constitution referred to hereinabove and that the issue involved affects a large number of employees and is of public importance, and held that the matter involving the issue of territorial jurisdiction of the concerned High Court to decide a challenge to an order passed by the Chairman, CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi should be considered by a Larger Bench. Registry directed to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders at the earliest so that the aforesaid issue is resolved at the earliest.

Supreme Court found that an important issue raised regarding the territorial jurisdiction of High Courts and the effect of Article 226(2) of the Indian Constitution. The issue affects a large number of employees and is of public importance. The court has decided that the matter should be considered by a Larger Bench due to its significance and has directed the registry to place it before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders at the earliest.

UIO Vs. Sanjiv Chaturvedi & Ors.

 

Latest Legal News