Maheshwar Narayan Sharma And Ors vs M V Babu Svaminath And Ors

$~28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7815/2026, CM APPLs. 37934/2026, 37935/2026 &
37936/2026

MAHESHWAR NARAYAN
SHARMA AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Prakhar Bhatnagar and Mr.
Sahitya Sharma, Advs.

versus

M V BABU SVAMINATH AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Dr. K.P. Kylasanatha Pillay, Sr.
Adv. with Mr. Nitish Pande, Advs. for R-1
to R-3
Mr. Krishna Kumar Sharma, SPC with Mr.
Bipul Kumar, GP for UOI
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 29.05.2026

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. This writ petition challenges an order passed by the Chairperson
1
of the Central Administrative Tribunal in exercise of the jurisdiction
vested in him by Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act,
2
1985 .

3

2. Respondents 1 to 3 instituted OA 596/2025 before the
Ernakulam Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, challenging

1
“Tribunal”, hereinafter
2
“AT Act”, hereinafter
3
“the respondents”, hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:24.06.2026
15:26:10
W.P.(C) 7815/2026 Page 1 of 7

the promotion granted to the present petitioners, who were impleaded
as Respondents 7 to 84 in the OA.

3. As we are dealing with an order passed on a transfer petition, it
is not necessary to dwell further into the facts.

4. Suffice it to state that PT 22/2026 was filed by the present
petitioners before the Chairperson of the Tribunal, seeking transfer of
OA 596/2025 from the Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal to the
Principal Bench of the Tribunal.


5. We may note that, of the said petitioners, 17 are located in
Delhi, 16 in Uttar Pradesh, 7 in Bihar, 3 in Haryana, 4 in Rajasthan, 2
in Chhattisgarh, 1 in Jharkhand, 3 in Madhya Pradesh, 1 in Kerala, 7
in West Bengal, 2 in Andhra Pradesh, 5 in Tamil Nadu, 1 in
Uttarakhand, 2 in Manipur, 1 in Nagaland, 3 in Maharashtra, 2 in
Telangana and 1 in Sikkim. Despite this, by the transfer petition, all
the petitioners desire transfer of the OA to Delhi.

6. We deem it appropriate to emphasis this fact as one of Mr.
Prakhar Bhatnagar’s principal contentions is that the Tribunal did not
factor in the convenience of the present petitioners, i.e., the applicants
in the PT before the learned Chairperson, while deciding the PT. He
invokes, for this purpose, the principle of forum conveniens .

7. Given the diverse locations of the petitioners, we are unable to
understand how the principle of forum conveniens can at all apply.

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:24.06.2026
15:26:10
W.P.(C) 7815/2026 Page 2 of 7

8. Be that as it may, the learned Chairperson disposed of the PT
filed by the petitioners by the following order dated 24 April 2026:

“Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

The present P.T. has been filed for transfer of the proceedings of
the subject O.A. from the Ernakulam Bench to the Principal Bench
at New Delhi.

Mr. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that
respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are the original applicants in the O.A. and
they have challenged the promotion of the petitioner, who is the
original private respondent. He further submits that the
petitioner/original respondent is posted at New Delhi and the
impugned order has also been passed at New Delhi. There is no
dispute that the Principal Bench has part jurisdiction in the matter.

However, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are posted at
Thiruvananthapuram and, therefore, part of the cause of action also
lies within the jurisdiction of the Ernakulam Bench. The said
respondents, being dominus litis, are at liberty to file the O.A.
either before the Ernakulam Bench or the Principal Bench at New
Delhi. The present petitioner (original private respondent) cannot
dictate the forum or compel the original applicants to approach a
particular Bench.

Mr. Bhatnagar further submits that respondent Nos. 1 to 3, by way
of the subject O.A., have challenged the promotion of more than 84
persons, who are posted across different parts of the country, and
that it would be convenient for such private respondents if the O.A.
is transferred to New Delhi.

Be that as it may, the fact remains that if the proceedings are
transferred to New Delhi, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (original
applicants) would be put to inconvenience.

In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise our
jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act,
1985.

Accordingly, the present P.T. stands disposed of.”

9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners have instituted
the present writ petition.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:24.06.2026
15:26:10
W.P.(C) 7815/2026 Page 3 of 7

10. We have heard Mr. Prakhar Bhatnagar, learned Counsel for the
petitioners, Dr. K.P. Kylasanatha Pillay, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for Respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. Krishna Kumar Sharma,
learned Senior Panel Counsel for the Union of India.

11. Mr. Bhatnagar submits that the test which the Chairperson is
required to adopt while deciding an application for transfer of
proceedings pending before one Bench to another Bench, of the
Tribunal, is the test of forum conveniens . He has placed reliance, for
this purpose, on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in
4
Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. v. Union of India as well as the
judgments of the Division Benches of this Court in Comptroller and
5
Auditor General of India v. Nirbhay Kumar Santosh and State of
6
Bihar v. Amit Lodha .

12. None of these judgments can come to the aid of the petitioners.
Sterling Agro Industries was dealing with the concept of the forum
before which a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India could be instituted. Unlike Article 226 of the Constitution of
India or, for that matter, Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
7 8 9
1908 , Section 25 of the AT Act and Rule 6(1) of the Central

4
2011 SCC OnLine Del 3162
5
2025 SCC OnLine Del 1325
6
2023 SCC OnLine Del 6387
7
“CPC”, hereinafter
8
25. Power of Chairman to transfer cases from one Bench to another .—On the application of any of
the parties and after notice to the parties, and after hearing such of them as he may desire to be heard, or on
his own motion without such notice, the Chairman may transfer any case pending before one Bench, for
disposal, to any other Bench.
6. Place of filing application .—
(1) An application shall ordinarily be filed by an applicant with the Registrar of the Bench
within whose jurisdiction—
( i ) the applicant is posted for the time being, or
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:24.06.2026
15:26:10
W.P.(C) 7815/2026 Page 4 of 7

10
Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 envisages an OA
being ordinarily filed by an applicant with the Registrar of the Bench
within whose jurisdiction the applicant is posted or the cause of action
wholly or in part has arisen. The proviso to the Rule envisages hearing
and disposal of the application by the Bench which has jurisdiction
over the matter subject to the decision of the Chairperson under
Section 25 of the AT Act on an application filed under the said
provision.

13. In view of Rule 6 (1), there can be no doubt about the fact that
the Ernakulam Bench has jurisdiction over the matter and that
Respondents 1 to 3 correctly approached the Ernakulam Bench. As
we have noted, unlike Section 20 of the CPC and Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, Rule 6 (1) (i) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules
accords primacy to the location of the applicant before the Tribunal,
rather than the respondent. This sole factor, even by itself, would belie
the reliance placed by Mr. Bhatnagar on the principle on forum
conveniens .

14. Even if the principle of forum conveniens is to be pressed into
service, if the applicants are situated in one location and the
respondents in another, given Rule 6 (1) (i), ordinarily the convenient
forum would be the forum where the applicants are situated and not
where the respondents are situated.

( ii ) the cause of action, wholly or in part, has arisen:
Provided that with the leave of the Chairman the application may be filed with the
Registrar of the Principal Bench and subject to the orders under Section 25, such
application shall be heard and disposed of by the Bench which has jurisdiction over the
matter.
10
“CAT (Procedure) Rules”, hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:24.06.2026
15:26:10
W.P.(C) 7815/2026 Page 5 of 7

15. The Tribunal has, therefore, applied the correct test and noted
that, as Respondents 1 to 3 are the dominus litis and as they are posted
in Ernakulam, no case for transfer of the case from Ernakulam to
Delhi is made out.

16. Even on facts, we find the reliance on the principle of forum
conveniens to be misconceived. It is not as though all the petitioners
before us are situated in Delhi and that, therefore, it would be
overwhelmingly convenient for the lis to be adjudicated in Delhi
rather than Ernakulam. We have already noted the various locations in
which the petitioners before us are situated. They are spread all over
the country. As such, it cannot even be said that all the petitioners are
situated in Delhi so as to maintain a plea of forum conveniens even on
facts.

17. The exercise of jurisdiction under Section 25 of the AT Act,
read with Rule 6 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, is purely
administrative and discretionary in nature. It does not lend itself to
interference in judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, unless it is founded on erroneous principles or is manifestly
arbitrary or perverse. The impugned order of the Tribunal is not
vitiated on any of these grounds.


18. Besides, we have to be conscious of the fact that, with the
advent of technology, it is possible for parties located at different
locations in the country to participate in proceedings virtually, even if
they are not physically in a position to travel.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:24.06.2026
15:26:10
W.P.(C) 7815/2026 Page 6 of 7

19. There is, therefore, no cause for us to interfere with the
impugned order which is upheld in its entirety. The writ petition is,
therefore, dismissed in limine .

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.
MAY 29, 2026 /aky
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:24.06.2026
15:26:10
W.P.(C) 7815/2026 Page 7 of 7