Read Time: 07 minutes

Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta on Monday told Supreme Court that a constitutional court cannot use language, given that the orders form part of a permanent record. The SG was referring to remarks made by Calcutta High Court that the Principal bench of the CAT was following diktat's of the Union Government.

The bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar & CT Ravikumar was hearing an appeal against the order of Calcutta High Court, setting aside transfer of Alpan Bandopadhyay’s case from Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Calcutta to Delhi. Bandopadhyay was formerly the Chief Secretary of West Bengal.

Bandopadhyay moved the Calcutta High Court seeking the setting aside of the decision of the CAT Principal Bench. The Calcutta High Court, while setting the order aside noted,
 “It is unfortunate that the Principal Bench of the CAT nurtured such efforts by passing the impugned transfer order, thereby paying obeisance to the diktat of the Union of India, which has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court and various High Courts not to be a favoured litigant.”

Bandopadhyay, the former chief secretary to West Bengal was called asked to report to Delhi on disciplinary grounds. However he was not released by the West Bengal State Government. Bandopadhyay moved the CAT at Kolkata after the Central Government decided to inquire into his case, Central Government moved a petition in CAT Principal Bench at Delhi seeking his case be transferred to Delhi because the decision to conduct enquiry was taken in Delhi and that he belonged to Central Cadre.

When the matter was called for hearing, the SG argued that the order of Calcutta High Court was "disturbing" and that the High Court did not have the jurisdiction to pass such an order, let alone make such comments. The Bench questioned the SG about Rule 6(2) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987.

The SG replied to this stating that this order will have larger ramifications given that an officer who is currently serving in Delhi can say that he normally resides in Sikkim and drag the centre to fight its case far away from where the cause of action has ordinary taken place. 

The Bench however noted that since part of the cause of action arise in Kolkata, the order of the Calcutta High Court cannot be considered bad in view of Rule 6(2) while offering to expunge the comments made by the court. The SG submitted that merely expunging the remarks of the High Court will not suffice and that it needs ‘something stronger.’

The SG further submitted that the court should consider the order whether he fails or succeeds in convincing the court to set aside the order. The court on hearing the submissions of the SG asked him if he could substantiate his point of contention.

The SG informed the court that he will circulate a short note along with the cases by Thursday, November 18. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Senior Advocate, appearing for the respondent submitted that he would like to file a reply to the short note filed by the SG by the next date of hearing.

The matter now stands adjourned to 22nd November 2021.

Case title : Union of India Vs Alpan Bandhopadyay