Delhi High Court rejects review petition by Alapan Bandyopadhyay against transfer of his case to Delhi

The Delhi High Court on Thursday dismissed a review petition filed by former West Bengal Chief Secretary Alapan Bandyopadhyay challenging the High Court's 2022 ruling that upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Chairman's decision to transfer a case filed by him from the CAT's Kolkata Bench to Delhi..A Division Bench of Justices C Hari Shankar and Jyoti Singh dismissed the plea as being devoid of any merits. .The West Bengal government and the Central government had been locked in a tug of war over Bandyopadhyay, following a political controversy arising out of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s review meeting on Cyclone Yaas in 2021.It was alleged that Bandyopadhyay turned up late to the meeting presided over by the PM, after which the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) initiated proceedings against him. The Centre subsequently set up a panel to probe the charges against him.This move was challenged by him before the Kolkata Bench of CAT. However, the matter was transferred to Delhi by the CAT Chairman before any hearing could take place. Bandyopadhyay challenged the order of the CAT Chairman before the Calcutta High Court, which set it aside.After an appeal by the Centre, the Supreme Court set aside the order of the Calcutta High Court. The top court held that any decision of the CAT at Delhi, including the one passed under Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, could be subjected to scrutiny "only before a Division Bench of a High Court within whose jurisdiction the tribunal concerned falls.".Bandyopadhyay then moved the Delhi High Court, challenging the transfer of the case.His plea stated that the order passed by the Principal Bench of CAT was in complete violation of the principles of natural justice, equity and fair play as he was not even granted a right to file his written objections to the transfer petition filed by the Centre, which was allowed on the very first day of its listing..Bandyopadhyay’s plea was initially dismissed by a Bench of then Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh on March 7, 2022.A review petition was then filed by him questioning the correctness of this verdict. One of the grounds raised in the review plea was the denial of a passover despite repeated requests from the junior counsel appearing for Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, so that Singhvi may appear to address the Court.A Bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher (since retired) and Jyoti Singh issued notice on the review petition in April 2022..In its response, the Centre said that though the right to be heard by a court is a valid and valuable right, the right of being heard only through a senior counsel is not. It added that there is neither a rule providing mandatory passover on the first call nor is it a regular practice of the Delhi High Court to grant such a passover.It further said that if this ground is accepted to be a ground for review, all courts would be flooded with applications for re-hearing, only on the ground that the litigant wanted to be represented by a Senior Advocate..The Court today ruled that no passover being granted for a senior lawyer to appear and argue the case is not a ground to review the earlier judgment. "The ground that no pass over was granted cannot be a ground for review of the judgement. It is not a matter of right to seek a pass over and moreover, counsel for the Petitioner was heard at length, which is evident from a bare reading of the judgement," the Court held. The Court also rejected the argument that the earlier ruling failed to appreciate that the CAT did not give Bandhopadhyay an opportunity to file a written response opposing the transfer. "Court took note of the fact that Petitioner was duly represented by a team of counsels including a Senior Counsel, who argued vociferously before the Tribunal, as recorded in the order of the Tribunal," it noted. The Court further found no error in the finding that the CAT chairman's power to transfer cases from one Bench to another was an administrative one."Section 25 by its plain reading bestows administrative power to the Chairman and is neither regulated nor controlled by any rule. Nothing has been shown by the Petitioner even today, which warrants a different interpretation or view, calling for a review of the judgement," it added. .Senior Advocate AK Behera with advocates Kunal Vajani, Kunal Mimani, Kartikey Bhatt and Prashant Alai appeared for Bandyopadhyay.The Central government was represented through Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Vikramjeet Banerjee, Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) Nidhi Raman, as well as advocates Akash Mishra, Arnav Mittal, Suraj, Kartik Dey and Mayank Sansanwal..[Read Judgment].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.