Rule 6(1) of CAT (Procedure) Rules accords primacy to applicant’s location over respondent’s for determining forum conveniens.

The petitioners (original private respondents) challenged an order passed by the Chairperson of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) under Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

Respondents 1 to 3 had filed OA 596/2025 before the Ernakulam Bench challenging the promotion of 84 individuals (including the petitioners) who are posted across various states in India

The petitioners filed PT 22/2026 before the Chairperson seeking transfer of the OA from the Ernakulam Bench to the Principal Bench (Delhi), arguing that 17 petitioners were in Delhi, the impugned promotion order was passed in Delhi, and the Ernakulam forum was inconvenient

The Chairperson dismissed the transfer petition on April 24, 2026, holding that the original applicants are dominus litis and entitled to choose the forum where cause of action arises

1. Whether the principle of forum conveniens necessitates the transfer of proceedings from the Ernakulam Bench to the Principal Bench when the respondents are spread across the country

2. Whether the Chairperson of the CAT correctly exercised discretionary jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which empowers the Chairman to transfer cases between Benches

Rule 6(1) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, which mandates that an application be filed where the applicant is posted or where the cause of action arises, noting that the rule accords primacy to the location of the applicant over the respondent

Precedents regarding forum conveniens under Article 226, such as Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, were distinguished as being inapplicable to the specific statutory scheme of the CAT Rules

The court reasoned that since Respondents 1 to 3 are posted in Thiruvananthapuram, a part of the cause of action arises within the Ernakulam Bench's jurisdiction, making their choice of forum legally sound under Rule 6(1)

The court rejected the petitioners' plea of forum conveniens, observing that the petitioners are located in diverse states including Bihar, Rajasthan, and West Bengal; therefore, Delhi was not an "overwhelmingly convenient" forum for all parties

The court clarified that the principle of dominus litis allows the original applicants to choose between concurrent jurisdictions, and a respondent cannot compel a transfer simply for their own convenience

Furthermore, the court noted that modern technology allows for virtual participation, mitigating any geographical hardship

The court held that the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 25 of the AT Act is administrative and discretionary, and since the order was not arbitrary, perverse, or founded on erroneous principles, judicial interference under Article 226 was not warranted

The Ernakulam Bench remains the proper forum for the adjudication of the OA