CAT applications may be filed where any part of the cause of action arises.

The respondent applied under Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, read with Rule 6 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, to transfer OA 53/2025 from the Ranchi Circuit Bench to the Principal Bench. The Tribunal allowed the application on 7 November 2025.

The CAG challenged that order, arguing, among other things, that the parties were located within the Ranchi Circuit Bench’s jurisdiction and that transfer at an advanced stage risked delaying the proceedings and amounted to bench hunting. By the time the High Court considered the challenge, the papers had been transferred to the Principal Bench.

1. Whether the Tribunal Chairman’s discretionary order transferring the OA to the Principal Bench disclosed a ground warranting interference by the High Court in its certiorari jurisdiction.

2. Whether transfer to the Principal Bench, despite the proceedings having advanced before the Ranchi Circuit Bench, should be set aside on grounds of bench hunting or likely delay.

Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, empowers the Tribunal Chairman to transfer a pending case between Benches; Rule 6 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, permits an application to be filed where the applicant is posted or where the cause of action arose, wholly or in part, and does not make the applicant’s location the exclusive basis of territorial jurisdiction.

Under Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan, certiorari is supervisory, not appellate: it may correct jurisdictional errors, procedural illegality, or an error of law apparent on the face of the record, but does not permit reappraisal of factual findings.

Under Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, where part of the cause of action arises within a forum’s jurisdiction, the litigant as dominus litis may institute proceedings there; that choice follows from the forum’s jurisdiction and does not, by itself, establish forum shopping.

The High Court considered the Chairman’s transfer power discretionary and found no apparent jurisdictional or legal error warranting certiorari. The Principal Bench had jurisdiction because the OA challenged a circular issued by CAG headquarters in New Delhi, giving rise to at least part of the cause of action there. The respondent could therefore pursue the OA before either competent Bench, and the choice did not establish mala fides or bench hunting.

Although transfer at an advanced stage could cause delay, the papers had already been sent to the Principal Bench, and returning them to Ranchi would likely prolong the matter further. The CAG had not disputed the Principal Bench’s competence to decide the case.

It requested the Chairman to assign the matter to the appropriate Bench, preferably within two weeks of the judgment’s uploading, and requested that Bench to decide the OA preferably within three months.