As per case facts, Kunda Pradeep Babu was transferred from South Central Railway to North Eastern Railway after his suspension, related to a CBI investigation, was revoked. He challenged this ...
* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
&
*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR
CHINTALAPUDI
+ WRIT PETITION NO: 16397 of 2026
% 29.09.2026
# The Union Of India and Others
……Petitioners
And:
$Kunda Pradeep Babu and Others
….Respondents.
!Counsel for the petitioners : JUPUDI V.K.
YAGNADUTT(CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT COUNSEL)
^Counsel for the respondents : T. SREEDHAR
<Gist:
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1.(2024) 12 SCC 292
2.(2022) 3 SCC 133
3.1960 SCC OnLine SC 12
4.2026 SCC OnLine SC 1098
5.AIR 1953 SC 210
6.AIR 1954 SC 207
7.(2000) 7 SCC 640
8.(1994) 4 SCC 711
9.(2002) 1 SCC 567
10.(2004) 6 SCC 254
11.(2014) 9 SCC 329
12.(2023) 7 SCC 791
13.(1997) 3 SCC 261
14.(2024) 13 SCC 1
15.2026 SCC OnLine SC 1098
16.(2022) 3 SCC 133
17.(1997) 4 SCC 357
18.2006(9)SCC 583
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
2
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
* * * *
WRIT PETITION NO: 16397 of 2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 29.09.2026
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
&
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR
CHINTALAPUDI
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments?
Yes/No
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals
Yes/No
3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the
fair copy of the Judgment?
Yes/No
____________________
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J
____________________________________
PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI ,J
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
3
Date of reserved for orders : 03.08.2026
Date of pronouncement :29.09.2026
Date of uploading :29.09.2026
APHC010301352026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
WRIT PETITION NO: 16397 of 2026
[3601]
The Union Of India and Others ...Petitioner(s)
Vs.
Kunda Pradeep Babu and Others ...Respondent(s)
**********
CORAM : SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI
DATE : 29
th
September 2026
Present:
Advocate for Petitioner: JUPUDI V K
YAGNADUTT(CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT COUNSEL)
Advocate for Respondent: T SREEDHAR
JUDGMENT: (per Hon‟ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)
Heard Sri Challa Dhananjay, Additional Solicitor General of India,
assisted by Sri Jupudi V K Yagnadutt, Central Government Counsel, for
the petitioners and Sri T. Sreedhar, learned counsel for the respondent.
I. Order under challenge:
2. The Union of India, Ministry of Railways, along with others (writ
petitioners) have filed this writ petition challenging the Order dated
28.01.2026 in O.A.No.933 of 2025 passed by the Central Administrative
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
4
Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (in short „CAT‟). The said O.A
was filed by the present respondent (applicant), challenging the Order of
Transfer issued by the Director/Estt. (Spl.), Railway Board, vide
proceedings No.E(O)III-2025/TR/437, dated 29.08.2025.
3. The applicant was transferred by the said Order from
SS/IRAS/South Central Railway to North Eastern Railway and posted in
the cadre against an existing vacancy.
4. The O.A has finally been allowed. The order of transfer has been
set aside. The writ petitioners were directed to allow the applicant to
continue his services at Secunderabad with certain other directions and
also granting the liberty to the writ petitioners to take appropriate action if
the applicant committed any breach of the conditions imposed by the
High Court while granting bail to the applicant.
II. Facts:
5. The applicant was initially given appointment in the Indian
Railway Accounts Service (IRAS) vide appointment order No.2015/E
(GR-I) 10/2, dated 04.12.2015. While working at Guntakal Division,
Andhra Pradesh, the applicant was charged for the offences punishable
under Section 61 (2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) Act,
2023 (Criminal Conspiracy) and under sections 7, 8, 9, 10 & 12 of
Prevention of Corruption Act (in short „PC Act‟), wherein the applicant
along with several employees were apprehended by the Central Bureau
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
5
of Investigation (CBI) while laying a trap in
Rc.No.2182024A0013/CBI/AC-III/New Delhi and the said crime was
under investigation by the CBI. The applicant was detained beyond 48
hours by CBI and so he was placed under suspension which was
subsequently extended from time to time, but finally, on the
recommendations of the Review Committee, the Deputy Secretary,
Railway Board had revoked the suspension of the applicant vide
proceedings dated 26.08.2025. Thereafter, the applicant was transferred
from South Central Railway (SCR) with immediate effect to North Eastern
Railway (NER) vide Office Order dated 29.08.2025 and was
consequentially relieved by relieving Order No.077 of 2025, dated
01.09.2025 issued by the Railway Board against the existing vacancy at
North Eastern Railway.
6. The applicant being aggrieved from the order of transfer dated
29.08.2025 approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderbad
Bench, Hyderabad in O.A.No.933 of 2025 in which he also prayed for
suspension of the Order of relieving dated 01.09.2025, which the CAT
declined to grant. The applicant then filed W.P.No.29679 of 2025 on
24.09.2025 in the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad,
which was disposed of vide Order dated 26.09.2025 with a direction to
the Central Administrative Tribunal to dispose of the stay application
within a period of two weeks and also directed the writ petitioners to
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
6
continue the applicant at Guntakal till the adjudication of the stay
application by the CAT. Pursuant to the said Order, the applicant
reported to duty on 17.10.2025 before the Office of the Principal Financial
Adviser‟s Officer, South Central Railway at Secunderabad, and later on
the applicant made a representation dated 17.10.2025 to post him to a
non-sensitive post at Guntakal of South Central Railway Headquarters, as
also for payment of salary. The writ petitioners‟ case is that the period of
absence from duty of the applicant from relieving date i.e., from
01.09.2025 from South Central Railway until the date of reporting at
Headquarters of South Central Railway on 17.10.2025 (from 01.09.2025
to 16.10.2025) was not regularized. The applicant‟s request made by
such representation was deferred.
7. In the OA, the applicant, inter alia, submitted that the CBI
conducted searches on 04.07.2024 and implicated him as Accused No.2,
and he was arrested on 05.07.2024. However, he was granted
conditional bail in Crl.R.C.No.620 of 2024, vide Orders in I.A.No.1 of
2024, dated 02.08.2024 by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The
conditions of the bail granted in the said Order were subsequently relaxed
vide Order dated 09.12.2024 in I.A.No.3 of 2024.
8. The applicant also stated about his grievances or
inconveniences, to be faced by such transfer Order to North Eastern
Railways, including his personal grievances with respect to the health
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
7
issues and of his wife. The applicant also raised the point that the Order
of Transfer was passed without providing an opportunity of hearing to
him. The Order of Transfer as also the Relieving Order were said to be in
violation of the Order dated 09.12.2024 granting bail, as also the Order
dated 26.09.2025 in W.P.No.29679 of 2025 by the High Court for the
State of Telangana, under which direction was issued to continue the
applicant in Guntakal till adjudication of his stay application by the Central
Administrative Tribunal.
9. The applicant also raised the issue before the CAT that the
South Central Railway was further sub-divided and the Guntakal Region
was merged with South Coastal Railway Zone (SCRZ) with Headquarters
at Visakhapatnam, and at that time the applicant was reporting to South
Central Railway at Secunderabad, which in his submission, was
altogether a different zone, pursuant to the Orders of revocation of
suspension. The prayer was made to declare the Order of Transfer, as
also the Relieving Order, as void having been passed without providing
an opportunity of hearing.
10. The writ petitioners (respondents in OA) filed their counter
opposing the O.A. It was submitted that the applicant was under deemed
suspension with effect from 05.07.2024 to 27.08.2025, following his arrest
and detention by CBI, Anti Corruption Bureau-III on 04.07.2024 and his
suspension was revoked on 26.08.2025 and the decision was taken by
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
8
the competent authority that the applicant should be transferred out of his
present railway zone to avoid any possibility of the applicant in influencing
the witnesses or hampering of the CBI investigation and be posted
against a non-sensitive post. The applicant was transferred from South
Central Railway to North Eastern Railway. The applicant did not raise
any grievance on administrative side, i.e., by filing representation raising
his personal grievances or problems. It was submitted that the transfer is
an incidence of service, so, the applicant must have reported at work
place of transfer and then ought to have made representation. The
medical conditions of the applicant, as also of his wife, as mentioned in
the OA, were said to be an afterthought, stated only on receipt of his
transfer order, as the same were not previously reported. The
recommendations of the Suspension Review Committee had the approval
of the Cadre Controlling Authority (CCA) in Railway Board‟s office. So,
the applicant was ordered for transfer from South Central Railway to
North Eastern Railway on administrative exigency. The applicant was a
Group-A Officer in Indian Railway Accounts Service having all India
transfer liability. The Order of Transfer was in accordance with law and
the conditions of service of the applicant, under administrative exigencies.
11. The applicant filed rejoinder affidavit reiterating his stand as
was taken in the OA. It was further stated that the Zonal Railway transfer
from Guntakal division of South Central Railway to North Eastern Railway
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
9
with its headquarters at Gorakhpur was unfair and contrary to mandatory
procedure governing posting of Senior Scale Officers with IRAS rank, and
the Suspension Review Committee had no authority to recommend
transfer. So, any administrative action based on such recommendation
was beyond its jurisdiction and was a colourable exercise of power.
III. Order of Central Administrative Tribunal dated 28.01.2026:
12. The Central Administrative Tribunal on consideration of the
case of the parties as also the submissions advanced from both the sides
allowed the OA. It considered and recorded the reasons for its Order.
The CAT in its Order observed that in the pending OA, pursuant to the
directions of the Tribunal, the writ petitioners filed instructions from the
Railway Board dated 02.12.2025 and stated that since the CBI enquiry
was still pending and there was no change in the administrative situation,
the original transfer order dated 29.08.2025 should be maintained. There
was no feasibility of accommodating the applicant to any nearer place
outside Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. But considering the directions
of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in
W.P.No.29679 of 2025, dated 26.09.2025, the applicant was retained at
Headquarters at Secunderabad temporarily vide Orders dated 07.01.2026
in MA.No.30 of 2026. The CAT observed that in spite of the Order of the
High Court for the State of Telangana, staying the transfer order dated
29.08.2025, directing to continue the applicant at Guntakal till his stay
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
10
application was adjudicated by the Tribunal, the writ petitioners while
implementing the said Order, instead of allowing the applicant to resume
his duties at original place of work i.e., at Gunthakal, they posted the
applicant at Headquarters Secunderabad where the applicant had joined
and had been serving at Secunderabad. The main reason, according to
the CAT for transferring the applicant from out of Gunthakal division was
to avoid influencing of witnesses or tampering evidence, though no such
reason was assigned in the transfer order. The CAT further observed
that on enquiry being made from the learned Assistant Solicitor General
and the officials present from the Office of the Headquarters,
Secunderabad upon joining of the applicant at Secunderabad on the point
as to whether the applicant was interfering with the investigation of the
CBI or was indulging in any objectionable activities, the Tribunal was
informed that they had not received any such complaint against the
applicant. The Tribunal thereafter, recorded in paras-11 and 12 that the
health issues of the applicant and his wife and she having delivered a son
on 28.08.2025, and there was no other family member, except the
applicant‟s wife‟s mother to look after the newly born child and the
applicant‟s wife, so, if the applicant was forced to join at the transferred
place, it would not only cause hardship to the applicant, but also to his
family, the Tribunal taking into account that there were vacancies at
Secunderabad where the applicant was working at the headquarters
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
11
under South Central Railways and that the applicant was earlier posted at
Gunthakal prior to the order of transfer, which came under South Coast
Railway after bifurcation of the South Central Railway into two zones and
that the writ petitioners themselves modified the original transfer place
while posting him at Secunderabad, held that the impugned Order of
Transfer dated 29.08.2025 had to be declared as null and void. Thus, in
view of the domestic problems and the health issues coupled with the fact
that the applicant was not indulging in any activities detrimental to the
administration nor interfering with the investigation by CBI, the OA was
allowed and the Order of Transfer was quashed by the Tribunal. The
direction was issued to allow the applicant to continue his services at
Secunderabad, his present posting place observing further that, that
would also enable the applicant to comply with the conditions imposed by
the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Crl.RC.No.620 of 2024 while
granting bail. At the same time, the Tribunal also granted liberty to the
writ petitioners to take appropriate action if the applicant committed any
breach of conditions imposed in the bail order.
13. The directions issued by CAT as in paras-12 to 14 are
reproduced as under:
“12. Considering the circumstances, with the domestic problems and health
issues of the applicant as well as his wife and in view of the fact that the
applicant is not indulging in any activities detrimental to the administration nor
interfering with the investigation, we are of the view that the applicant cannot
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
12
be insisted to carry out the impugned transfer order. Accordingly, the OA
succeeds and the impugned order is quashed and set aside.
13. The respondents are directed to allow the applicant to continue his
services at Secunderabad, where he is presently working. It is also in the
interest of the respondents that the applicant continues at Secunderabad, thereby
the condition imposed by the Hon‟ble High Court not to give access to the
applicant to the concerned office to avoid tampering of evidence is also
complied with. However, the respondents are at liberty to take appropriate
action if the applicant commits any breach of the conditions imposed by the
Hon‟ble High Court while granting bail.
14. The OA is allowed in above terms. MA/30/2026 stands closed. There
shall be no order as to costs.”
IV. Submission of the learned counsel for parties:
14. Sri Challa Dhananjay, Additional Solicitor General of India,
submitted that the Order of the Tribunal cannot be maintained. He
submitted that the law is well settled that the transfer is an incidence of
service. The applicant‟s post is a transferable post and he can be
transferred at any place in India. He submitted that there are well
recognized grounds on which only, an order of transfer is open for
interference. No such ground existed in the present case. The
interference by the Tribunal with the Order of Transfer is on the grounds
of the alleged personal problems, may be health issues or the distance,
but in every transfer there are bound to be some issues, however, that
would not be the ground on which the Order of Transfer could be
interfered with. He submitted that in any case, the applicant must have
obeyed the Order of Transfer first by joining at the transferred place and
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
13
thereafter, in case of any grievance, the proper way was to make a
representation to the competent authority, which should have taken into
consideration those factors, and could have passed an appropriate order,
but it was not open for the Tribunal to interfere with the Order of Transfer
on such grounds, it being an incidence of service.
15. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners placed reliance on the
judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Sri Pubi Lombi v. The State of
Arunachal Pradesh
1
to contend that the scope of judicial review is only
available when there is a clear violation of statutory provision or the
transfer is persuaded by mala fide. Non-observation of executive
instructions does not confer a legally enforceable right to an employee
holding a transferable post. He submitted that there was no violation of
any statutory provision. The Order of Transfer was passed in the
exigency of service on administrative grounds.
16. Sri T. Sreedhar, learned counsel for the applicant raised a
preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition in the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh. He submitted that this Court has no territorial
jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. He submitted that the OA was decided by the
Central Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad, which falls in the State of
Telangana. Previously, when in the OA interim relief was not granted by
the Tribunal, the applicant approached the High Court for the State of
1
(2024) 12 SCC 292
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
14
Telangana in W.P.No.29679 of 2025. The said writ petition was decided
on 26.09.2025 after affording opportunity of hearing to the present writ
petitioners. But in the said writ petition any objection with respect to the
territorial jurisdiction of the High Court for the State of Telangana was not
raised. The writ petitioners submitted to the jurisdiction of the High Court
for the State of Telangana and consequently they are now estopped from
challenging the final order of the Tribunal in this Court (High Court of
Andhra Pradesh). He submitted that the remedy of the writ petitioners
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is before the High Court for
the State of Telangana.
17. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the cause of
action has no relevance to determine the territorial jurisdiction of the High
Court. He placed reliance in Union of India v. Alapan
Bandyopadhyay
2
, Lt.Col.Khajoor Singh v. Union of India
3
and
Baksish Ahmad v. Union of India
4
.
18. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that any
such objection was also not raised in the OA by the writ petitioners that
the Tribunal at Hyderabad had no jurisdiction. He submitted that if
according to the writ petitioners, the jurisdiction, cause of action was
within the territorial jurisdiction of the Andhra Pradesh falling within the
2
(2022) 3 SCC 133
3
1960 SCC OnLine SC 12
4
2026 SCC OnLine SC 1098
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
15
jurisdiction of this Court, such an objection with respect to the
maintainability of OA at Hyderabad should also have been raised.
19. He submitted that at the time the Order of Transfer was
passed the applicant was working at the Headquarters, South Central
Railway. The territorial jurisdiction is not with this Court. The Order of
Transfer has been issued from SS/IRAS/South Central Railway to North
Eastern Railway by the Director/Estt (Spl), Railway Board, vide
proceedings No.E(O)III-2025/TR/437, New Delhi, dated 29.08.2025.
20. Sri T. Sreedhar, learned counsel for the respondent/applicant,
further submitted that the preliminary objection with respect to the
territorial jurisdiction of this Court should be decided first and only
thereafter, the matter could be proceeded with on the merits.
21. On such submission, learned counsel for the applicant
initially avoided from advancing any arguments on the merits of the
matter, submitting that the objection with respect to the territorial
jurisdiction be decided first.
22. On the aspect of maintainability of the writ petition on the
ground of territorial jurisdiction in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Sri
Challa Dhananjay, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, for the
writ petitioners, submitted that the transfer of the respondent/applicant is
in fact from Gunthakal in South Central Railway to the North Eastern
Railway, so, the transfer is from a place in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
16
The OA was filed, initially in the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the Circuit
Bench at Vijayawada of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad.
He submitted that the Central Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad is for
both the States i.e., State of Telangana, and also for the State of Andhra
Pradesh. The OA was specifically referred „from Andhra Pradesh‟ and
was numbered as O.A.No.933 of 2025 (Andhra Pradesh). He submitted
that though the Central Administrative Tribunal is in the State of
Telangana at Hyderabad, but for the purposes of the service matters of
the Central Government employees in Andhra Pradesh, the Central
Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad is the Central Administrative
Tribunal for Andhra Pradesh, and therefore, for those matters from
Andhra Pradesh, the territorial jurisdiction will be of the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh though the Central Administrative Tribunal is situated at
Hyderabad. He submitted that it cannot be said that there is no territorial
jurisdiction when the Order has been passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad in the matters of the State of
Andhra Pradesh.
23. Sri Challa Dhananjay, learned Additional Solicitor General of
India, further submitted that the applicant was granted bail in
Crl.RC.No.620 of 2024 (Accused No.2) in I.A.No.1 of 2024, subject to the
conditions imposed, out of which, conditions 2 and 3 read as under:
“2. A1 and A2 are restrained from taking access to their respective offices
and to the office records during the period they are on bail.
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
17
3. They shall mark their attendance before the investigating officer on every
Saturday between 11.00 AM and 2.00 PM and thereby making themselves
available for investigation.”
He submitted that so far as Condition No.3 is concerned, the same was
slightly modified by Order dated 09.12.2024 to the following effect, and on
such modification, Condition No.3 reads as under:
“A1 and A2 shall mark their attendance on 5
th
of every month between
11.00 AM and 2.00 PM at CBI Office, Hyderabad. It is hereby made clear that
rest of the bail conditions shall stand intact.”
He submitted that the only change was with respect to the attendance of
the applicant that instead of „every Saturday‟ to „every month‟. He
submitted that Condition No.1 was not changed. Condition No.1 reads as
under:
“1. Petitioners/A1 and A2 shall be released on interim bail on each
executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Thirty thousand only) each
to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge for CBI Cases, Kurnool.”
24. The submission is that the applicant was required to attend
the enquiry only once in a month after the modified condition No.3 of the
bail order, which could be attended without any inconvenience in spite of
the order of transfer, though he further submitted that the hardship or
inconvenience is no ground to interfere with the order of transfer.
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
18
V. Points for determination:
25. In view of the submissions advanced, the following points arise
for our consideration:
A. Whether this Court (High Court of Andhra Pradesh) has territorial
jurisdiction over the subject matter so as to entertain the writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?
B. Whether the impugned Order dated 28.01.2026 of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, interfering with the Order of Transfer, can
be sustained on the grounds it has been passed?
VI. Analysis:
26. We make it clear that so far as Point No.B is concerned, we will
enter into that aspect only if we are satisfied on Point No.A that the writ
petition is maintainable by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. If there is
no territorial jurisdiction, certainly we would not enter into the legality of
the impugned judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal. But if we
reach the conclusion on point No.„A‟ that the writ petition is maintainable
in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, it having territorial jurisdiction, the
legality or otherwise of the impugned judgment of the Central
Administrative Tribunal would be considered in the light of the
submissions advanced, as also the law on the subject of transfer.
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
19
Point No.A:
Territorial jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India:
27. Article 226 of the Constitution of India reads as under:
“226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs:
(1) Notwithstanding anything in article 32 every High Court shall have powers,
throughout the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue
to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government,
within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the
nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warrantor and
certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred
by Part III and for any other purpose.
[(1-A) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to
any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court
exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of
action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding
that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is
not within those territories."; was inserted after 15th Amendment]
[Editorial comment-The Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963, this
was amended to include clause (1A). It states that the High Court, whose
territorial jurisdiction the cause of action originates under, may also have the
ability to issue directives, orders, or writs to any government, authority, or
person, even if their seat or place of abode is beyond the high court‟s territorial
jurisdiction.]
(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to
any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any
High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within
which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of
such power, notwithstanding that the scat of such Government or
authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories.
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
20
(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of
injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings
relating to, a petition under clause (1), without—
a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support
of the plea for such interim order; and
b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the
High Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such
application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the
counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within
a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date
on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or
where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the
expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if
the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of
that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the said next day, stand
vacated.
(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in
derogation of the power conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (2) of
article 32.”
28. Sri T. Sreedhar, learned counsel for the respondent/applicant,
vehemently placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in
Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh (supra) to contend that the concept of cause of
action is alien to Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He submitted
that the said concept is to be applied with respect to the suits, while
considering the territorial jurisdiction, but when it comes to the writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view of that judgment of
the Constitution Bench the question of cause of action or part of cause
action does not arise at all. He referred to the various paragraphs from
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
21
that judgment. Consequently, we are referring to that judgment, though
Constitution (Article 226) was amended after the judgment in Lt. Col.
Khajoor Singh (supra) and the law on determination of the territorial
jurisdiction of the High Court stands deleted to great extent.
29. In Lt.Col.Khajoor Singh (supra) two questions arose for
consideration by the Constitution Bench consisting of Seven Hon‟ble
Judges. The first question was,
i. “whether the Government of India as such can be said to have a
location in a particular place viz. New Delhi, irrespective of the fact
that its authority extends over all the States and its officers function
throughout India”
and the second question was,
ii. “whether there is any scope for introducing the concept of cause of
action as the basis of exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226”.
30. On the first question, namely, whether the Government of India
as such can be said to have a location in a particular place viz. New
Delhi, the main argument advanced was that the Government of India is
all pervasive and is functioning throughout the territory of India and
therefore every High Court has power to issue a writ against it, as it must
be presumed to be located within the territorial jurisdiction of all State
High Courts. The Hon‟ble Apex Court with respect to that argument
observed that, that argument confused the concept of location of a
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
22
Government with the concept of its functioning. A Government may be
functioning all over a State or all over India; but it certainly is not located
all over the State or all over India. It is true that the Constitution has not
provided that the seat of the Government of India will be at New Delhi.
That, however, does not mean that the Government of India as such has
no seat where it is located. It is common knowledge that the seat of the
Government of India is in New Delhi and the Government as such is
located in New Delhi. The absence of a provision in the Constitution can
make no difference to this fact. The Hon‟ble Apex Court observed that
what was to be seen was whether the words of Article 226 mean that the
person or authority to whom a writ is to be issued has to be resident in or
located within the territories of the High Court issuing the writ? Referring
to Article 226 of the Constitution as it stood then, the Hon‟ble Apex Court
observed that so far as a natural person is concerned, there can be no
doubt that he can be within those territories only if he resides therein
either permanently or temporarily. So far as an authority is concerned,
there can be no doubt that if its office is located therein it must be within
the territory. But do these words mean with respect to an authority that
even though its office is not located within those territories it will be within
those territories because its order may affect persons living in those
territories? It was observed that it is clear that the jurisdiction conferred on
the High Court by Article 226 does not depend upon the residence or
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
23
location of the person applying to it for relief; it depends only on the
person or authority against whom a writ is sought being within those
territories. It was further observed that it is not permissible to read in
Article 226 the residence or location of the person affected by the order
passed in order to determine the jurisdiction of the High Court. That
jurisdiction depends on the person or authority passing the order being
within those territories and the residence or location of the person
affected can have no relevance on the question of the High Court's
jurisdiction. Thus, if a person residing or located in Bombay, is aggrieved
by an order passed by an authority located, in Calcutta, the forum in
which he has to seek relief is not the Bombay High Court though the
order may affect him in Bombay but the Calcutta High Court where the
authority passing the order is located. The Hon‟ble Apex Court held that it
would, therefore, be wrong to introduce in Article 226 the concept of the
place where the order passed has effect in order to determine the
jurisdiction of the High Court which can give relief under Article 226. The
introduction of such a concept may give rise to confusion and conflict of
jurisdictions. The Hon‟ble Apex Court, held that the relevant words of
Article 226 as read, there can be no doubt that the jurisdiction conferred
by that Article on a High Court is with respect to the location or residence
of the person or authority passing the order and there can be no question
of introducing the concept of the place where the order is to have effect in
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
24
order to determine which High Court can give relief under it. The Hon‟ble
Apex Court reiterated that the effect of an order by whomsoever it is
passed can have no relevance in determining the jurisdiction of the High
Court which can take action under Article 226. Functioning of a
Government is really nothing other than giving effect to the orders passed
by it. Therefore it would not be right to introduce in Article 226 the concept
of the functioning of Government when determining the meaning of the
words “any person or authority within those territories”. There can,
therefore, be no escape from the conclusion that these words in Article
226 refer not to the place where the Government may be functioning but
only to the place where the person or authority is either resident or is
located. So far as a natural person is concerned, he is within those
territories if he resides there permanently or temporarily. So far as an
authority (other than a Government) is concerned, it is within the
territories if its office is located there. So far as a Government is
concerned it is within the territories only if its seat is within those
territories.
31. The Hon‟ble Apex Court, with respect to the seat of a
Government, observed that, whether the seat of a Government is
mentioned in the Constitution or not, there is undoubtedly a seat from
which the Government as such functions as a fact. What Article 226
requires is residence or location as a fact and if therefore there is a seat
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
25
from which the Government functions as a fact even though that seat is
not mentioned in the Constitution the High Court within whose territories
that seat is located will be the High Court having jurisdiction under Article
226 so far as the orders of the Government as such are concerned.
32. In Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh (supra), the view taken in Election
Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao and K.S. Rashid and Son
v. Income Tax Investigation Commission, in which it was held that there
are two-fold limitations on the power of the High Court to issue writs etc.
under Article 226, namely,
(i) the power is to be exercised „throughout the territories in relation to
which it exercises jurisdiction‟, that is to say, the writs issued by the
court cannot run beyond the territories subject to its jurisdiction, and
(ii) the person or authority to whom the High Court is empowered to
issue such writs must be “within those territories” which clearly
implies that they must be amenable to its jurisdiction either by
residence or location within those territories, was held to be the
correct view.
33. On the second question, namely whether it was possible to
introduce the concept of cause of action in Article 226 so that the High
Court in whose jurisdiction the cause of action arose would be the proper
one to pass an order thereunder, the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Lt. Col.
Khajoor Singh (supra) held that Article 226 as it stands does not refer
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
26
anywhere to the accrual of cause of action and to the jurisdiction of the
High Court depending on the place where the cause of action accrues
being within its territorial jurisdiction. The proceedings under Article 226
are not suits; they provide for extraordinary remedies by a special
procedure and give powers of correction to the High Court over persons
and authorities and these special powers have to be exercised within the
limits set for them. One of limitations is that the person or authority
concerned must be within the territories over which the High Court
exercises jurisdiction. The Hon‟ble Apex Court held that it would be going,
in the face of the express provision in Article 226 and doing away with an
express limitation contained in Article 226, if the concept of cause of
action were to be introduced. The concept of cause of action cannot be
introduced in Article 226, for by doing so would be doing away with the
express provision contained therein which requires that the person or
authority to whom the writ is to be issued should be resident in or located
within the territories over which the High Court has jurisdiction.
34. So far as the aforesaid second question is concerned, the
concept of part of cause of action was considered irrelevant or non-
considerable to determine the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court in its
writ jurisdiction under Article 226 for the reason that Article 226 as it stood
at that time, there was no concept under Article 226 for „cause of action‟.
The writ proceedings were not the civil suits, so as to apply that concept
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
27
of part of cause of action from the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as
applicable to suit or other proceedings, and the writ proceedings being
not covered under other proceedings in Code of Civil Procedure.
35. So, on the first question it was held in Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh
(supra) that the only limitation is that the person or authority to whom the
writ is to be issued is to be resident in or be located in an area over which
the High Court had the jurisdiction.
36. Learned counsel for the respondent placed much reliance in the
judgment of Lt.Col.Khajoor Singh (supra) to contend that writ can be
issued only to the person, resident in or the authority located within the
territories over which the High Court exercises jurisdiction. The concept
of part of cause of action is not to be introduced while determining the
territorial jurisdiction for the cases of Article 226 of the Constitution. It
was so held in Lt.Col.Khajoor Singh (supra).
37. No doubt it has been so laid down in the aforesaid judgment of
Lt.Col.Khajoor Singh (supra), on both the questions, but the said
judgment was rendered on 05.12.1960. Thereafter, Article 226 of the
Constitution of India has been amended, Clause (IA) was inserted and
thereafter, it was renumbered as Clause(2) specifically referring to the
“cause of action wholly or in part” and “notwithstanding that the seat of
such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not
within those territories”.
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
28
38. We are therefore of the view that now it cannot be argued on
the strength of Lt. Khajoor Singh (supra) that while considering the
territorial jurisdiction in the context of the maintainability of the writ petition
before the High Court, the concept of cause of action is not relevant or is
wholly irrelevant. We are of the view that the cause of action wholly or in
part if arises within the territorial jurisdiction of a particular High Court, the
writ petition would be maintainable in that High Court in view of Clause (2)
of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
39. We shall now refer the judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court on the aforesaid aspect, i.e., after the amendment of Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, which also took into consideration Lt. Col.
Khajoor Singh (supra) and Election Commission v.Saka Venkata
Rao
5
, and K. S. Rashid and Son v. Income Tax Investigation
Commission
6
, which were affirmed in Lt. Khajoor Singh (supra).
40. In Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra
7
on the
point of territorial jurisdiction of the High Court in the context of Clause (2)
of Article 226 of the Constitution, the Hon‟ble Apex Court held as under in
paragraphs 17, 18, 19 and 20 as under:
“17. From the provision in clause (2) of Article 226 it is clear that the
maintainability or otherwise of the writ petition in the High Court depends on
whether the cause of action for filing the same arose, wholly or in part, within
the territorial jurisdiction of that Court.
5
AIR 1953 SC 210
6
AIR 1954 SC 207
7
(2000) 7 SCC 640
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
29
18. In legal parlance the expression “cause of action” is generally
understood to mean a situation or state of facts that entitles a party to maintain
an action in a court or a tribunal; a group of operative facts giving rise to one or
more bases for suing; a factual situation that entitles one person to obtain a
remedy in court from another person. (Black's Law Dictionary)
19. In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary a “cause of action” is stated to be the
entire set of facts that gives rise to an enforceable claim; the phrase comprises
every fact, which, if traversed, the plaintiff must prove in order to obtain
judgment.
20. In “Words and Phrases” (4th Edn.) the meaning attributed to the phrase
“cause of action” in common legal parlance is existence of those facts which
give a party a right to judicial interference on his behalf.”
41. In Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu
8
on
the point of territorial jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution, the Hon‟ble Apex Court held that Clause (1) of Article 226
begins with a non obstante clause - notwithstanding anything in Article 32
- and provides that every High Court shall have power “throughout the
territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction”, to issue to any
person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government,
“within those territories” directions, orders or writs, for the enforcement of
any of the rights conferred by Part III or for any other purpose. Under
clause (2) of Article 226 the High Court may exercise its power conferred
by clause (1) if the cause of action, wholly or in part, had arisen within the
territory over which it exercises jurisdiction, notwithstanding that the seat
8
(1994) 4 SCC 711
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
30
of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not
within those territories.
42. Paragraph 5 of Oil & Natural Gas Commission (supra) reads
as under:
“5. Clause (1) of Article 226 begins with a non obstante clause —
notwithstanding anything in Article 32 — and provides that every High Court
shall have power “throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises
jurisdiction”, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases,
any Government, “within those territories” directions, orders or writs, for the
enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III or for any other purpose.
Under clause (2) of Article 226 the High Court may exercise its power
conferred by clause (1) if the cause of action, wholly or in part, had arisen
within the territory over which it exercises jurisdiction, notwithstanding that the
seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not
within those territories. On a plain reading of the aforesaid two clauses of
Article 226 of the Constitution it becomes clear that a High Court can exercise
the power to issue directions, orders or writs for the enforcement of any of the
fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution or for any other
purpose if the cause of action, wholly or in part, had arisen within the territories
in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, notwithstanding that the seat of the
Government or authority or the residence of the person against whom the
direction, order or writ is issued is not within the said territories. In order to
confer jurisdiction on the High Court of Calcutta, NICCO must show that at
least a part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of
that Court. That is at best its case in the writ petition.”
43. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Oil & Natural Gas Commission
(supra) considered the expression „cause of action‟ and observed that it is
well settled that the expression “cause of action” means that bundle of
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
31
facts which the petitioner must prove, if traversed, to entitle him to a
judgment in his favour by the Court. It was held that in determining the
objections of lack of territorial jurisdiction, the Court must take all the facts
pleaded in support of the cause of action into consideration albeit without
embarking upon an enquiry as to the correctness or otherwise of the said
facts. In other words the question whether a High Court has territorial
jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition must be answered on the basis of
the averments made in the writ petition, the truth or otherwise whereof
being immaterial. To put it differently, the question of territorial jurisdiction
must be decided on the facts pleaded in the petition.
44. Paragraph 6 of Oil & Natural Gas Commission (supra)
reads as under:
“6. It is well settled that the expression “cause of action” means that bundle
of facts which the petitioner must prove, if traversed, to entitle him to a
judgment in his favour by the Court. In Chand Kour v. Partab Singh [ILR
(1889) 16 Cal 98, 102 : 15 IA 156] Lord Watson said:
“… the cause of action has no relation whatever to the defence which may be
set up by the defendant, nor does it depend upon the character of the relief
prayed for by the plaintiff. It refers entirely to the ground set forth in the plaint
as the cause of action, or, in other words, to the media upon which the plaintiff
asks the Court to arrive at a conclusion in his favour.”
Therefore, in determining the objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction the
court must take all the facts pleaded in support of the cause of action into
consideration albeit without embarking upon an enquiry as to the correctness or
otherwise of the said facts. In other words the question whether a High Court
has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition must be answered on the
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
32
basis of the averments made in the petition, the truth or otherwise whereof
being immaterial. To put it differently, the question of territorial jurisdiction
must be decided on the facts pleaded in the petition. Therefore, the question
whether in the instant case the Calcutta High Court had jurisdiction to entertain
and decide the writ petition in question even on the facts alleged must depend
upon whether the averments made in paragraphs 5, 7, 18, 22, 26 and 43 are
sufficient in law to establish that a part of the cause of action had arisen within
the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court.”
45. In Oil & Natural Gas Commission (supra) a submission
was advanced that clause (2) was introduced in Article 226 of the
Constitution to enlarge the scope of the writ jurisdiction of the High Court
in Election Commission v Saka Venkata Subba Rao {AIR 1953 SC
210}. The Hon‟ble Apex Court while interpreting Article 226 as it then
stood, observed that the rule that cause of action attracts jurisdiction in
suits is based on statutory enactment and cannot be applied to writs
issuable under Article 226 which makes no reference to any cause of
action or where it arises but insists on the presence of the person or
authority „within the territories‟ in relation to which the High Court
exercises jurisdiction. Referring to the said judgment, the Hon‟ble Apex
Court in Oil & Natural Gas Commission (supra) observed that the said
view, taken in Saka Venkata Subba Rao case which was followed in the
subsequent cases also resulted into a situation that the High Court cannot
exercise jurisdiction on the plea that the whole or part of the cause of
action had arisen within its jurisdiction. The consequence as in that case
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
33
was, that only the High Court of Punjab could exercise jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution against the Union of India and other bodies
located in Delhi. To remedy this situation, clause (1-A) was inserted by
the 15th Amendment Act, 1963, to confer on the High Courts‟ jurisdiction
to entertain a petition under Article 226 against the Union of India or any
other body or authority located in Delhi if the cause of action has arisen,
wholly or in part, within its jurisdiction. Clause (1-A) was later renumbered
as clause (2) of Article 226. Therefore, it was observed by the Hon‟ble
Apex Court that the amendment was introduced to supersede the view
taken by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Saka Venkata Subba Rao (supra).
46. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Oil & Natural Gas Commission
(supra) reiterated that on a plain reading of clause (2) of Article 226 of the
Constitution it is clear that the power conferred by clause (1) can be
exercised by the High Court provided the cause of action wholly or in part,
had arisen within the territorial limits. It rejected the submission raising
the preliminary objection that, the cause of action wholly or in part has no
relevance in determining the territorial jurisdiction exercising the power
under Article 226 of the Constitution. The submission was held contrary
to the settled position. The well settled position restated was that if the
cause of action wholly or any part has arisen within the territorial
jurisdiction of the particular High Court, such High Court shall have the
jurisdiction. With respect to Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh (supra) it was
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
34
observed that, that was „rendered‟ at a time when Article 226 was
unamended and did not provide for the cause of action wholly or in part
arising within the territorial jurisdiction of a particular High Court. The
position changed by the amendment made in the Constitution inserting
clause (1A) by 15
th
Amendment Act 1963 i.e., after the judgment in Lt.
Col. Khajoor Singh (supra), which followed the 1954 judgment. Clause
(1A) was re-numbered as Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution. It
narrates the expression " The power conferred by clause (1) to issue
directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may
also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to
the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for
the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the scat of such
Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within
those territories”. So, clause (1) of Article 226 is to be read along with
clause (2) and the cause of action wholly or in part if it arises within the
territorial jurisdiction has importance and it cannot be said that the cause
of action has no relevance in determining the territorial jurisdiction of the
High Court.
47. In Union of India v. Adani Exports Ltd.
9
the same law has been
reiterated in paragraphs 16 and 17, which read as under:
“16. It is clear from the above constitutional provision that a High Court can
exercise the jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of
9
(2002) 1 SCC 567
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
35
action, wholly or in part, arises. This provision in the Constitution has come up
for consideration in a number of cases before this Court. In this regard, it would
suffice for us to refer to the observations of this Court in the case of Oil and
Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu [(1994) 4 SCC 711] (SCC at p.
713) wherein it was held:
“Under Article 226 a High Court can exercise the power to issue directions,
orders or writs for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights conferred
by Part III of the Constitution or for any other purpose if the cause of action,
wholly or in part, had arisen within the territories in relation to which it
exercises jurisdiction, notwithstanding that the seat of the Government or
authority or the residence of the person against whom the direction, order or
writ is issued is not within the said territories. The expression „cause of action‟
means that bundle of facts which the petitioner must prove, if traversed, to
entitle him to a judgment in his favour by the court. Therefore, in determining
the objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction the court must take all the facts
pleaded in support of the cause of action into consideration albeit without
embarking upon an enquiry as to the correctness or otherwise of the said facts.
Thus the question of territorial jurisdiction must be decided on the facts pleaded
in the petition, the truth or otherwise of the averments made in the petition
being immaterial.”
17. It is seen from the above that in order to confer jurisdiction on a High
Court to entertain a writ petition or a special civil application as in this case, the
High Court must be satisfied from the entire facts pleaded in support of the
cause of action that those facts do constitute a cause so as to empower the court
to decide a dispute which has, at least in part, arisen within its jurisdiction. It is
clear from the above judgment that each and every fact pleaded by the
respondents in their application does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that
those facts give rise to a cause of action within the court's territorial jurisdiction
unless those facts pleaded are such which have a nexus or relevance with the lis
that is involved in the case. Facts which have no bearing with the lis or the
dispute involved in the case, do not give rise to a cause of action so as to confer
territorial jurisdiction on the court concerned. If we apply this principle then we
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
36
see that none of the facts pleaded in para 16 of the petition, in our opinion, falls
into the category of bundle of facts which would constitute a cause of action
giving rise to a dispute which could confer territorial jurisdiction on the courts
at Ahmedabad.”
48. In Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India
10
, the Hon‟ble
Apex Court held that the Court must have the requisite territorial
jurisdiction. An order passed on a writ petition questioning the
constitutionality of a parliamentary Act, whether interim or final keeping in
view the provisions contained in clause (2) of Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, will have effect throughout the territory of India
subject of course to the applicability of the Act. It was held that where the
constitutionality of a parliamentary Act is challenged, then subject to
applicability of that Act, its effect throughout territory of India and that
aspect be kept under territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 (2).
49. In Kusum Lngots and Allys Ltd (supra), the concept of
cause of action was also considered. It was held that the cause of action
implies a right to sue. The material facts which are imperative for the
suitor to allege and prove, constitute the cause of action. Cause of action
is not defined in any statute. It has, however, been judicially interpreted
inter alia to mean that every fact which would be necessary for the
plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment
of the Court. Negatively put, it would mean that everything which, if not
10
(2004) 6 SCC 254
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
37
proved, gives the defendant an immediate right to judgment, would be
part of cause of action.
50. The Hon‟ble Apex Court also considered Section 20 (c) of
CPC, though observed that, in view of Section 141 of the Code of Civil
Procedure the provisions thereof would not apply to writ proceedings, but
certainly in the considered view of the Hon‟ble Apex Court on the
expression „cause of action‟ the decisions of the Court on the
interpretation of the expression „cause of action‟ as used in Code of Civil
Procedure could be of assistance. The Hon‟ble Apex Court clearly held
that even if a small fraction of cause of action accrued within the
jurisdiction of the Court, the Court will have jurisdiction in the matter, in
view of the expressions used in Clause (2) of Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
51. Paragraphs 6 to 10 and 22 of Kusum Ingots & Alloyes Ltd.
(supra) read as under:
“Cause of action
6. Cause of action implies a right to sue. The material facts which are
imperative for the suitor to allege and prove constitute the cause of action.
Cause of action is not defined in any statute. It has, however, been judicially
interpreted inter alia to mean that every fact which would be necessary for the
plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of
the Court. Negatively put, it would mean that everything which, if not proved,
gives the defendant an immediate right to judgment, would be part of cause of
action. Its importance is beyond any doubt. For every action, there has to be a
cause of action, if not, the plaint or the writ petition, as the case may be, shall be
rejected summarily.
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
38
7. Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India reads thus:
“226. (2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or
writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any
High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the
cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power,
notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence
of such person is not within those territories.”
8. Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under:
“20. Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action
arises.—Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a
court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction—
(a)-(b)***
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.”
9. Although in view of Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure the
provisions thereof would not apply to writ proceedings, the phraseology used in
Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure and clause (2) of Article 226,
being in pari materia, the decisions of this Court rendered on interpretation of
Section 20(c) CPC shall apply to the writ proceedings also. Before proceeding
to discuss the matter further it may be pointed out that the entire bundle of facts
pleaded need not constitute a cause of action as what is necessary to be proved
before the petitioner can obtain a decree is the material facts. The expression
material facts is also known as integral facts.
10. Keeping in view the expressions used in clause (2) of Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, indisputably even if a small fraction of cause of action
accrues within the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court will have jurisdiction in
the matter.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
22. The Court must have the requisite territorial jurisdiction. An order
passed on a writ petition questioning the constitutionality of a parliamentary
Act, whether interim or final keeping in view the provisions contained in clause
(2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will have effect throughout the
territory of India subject of course to the applicability of the Act.”
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
39
52. In Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India
11
the Hon‟ble
Apex Court considered Article 226 of the Constitution as it stood
originally, the judgment of the Constitution Bench in the case of Election
Commission v. Saka Venkata Rao {AIR 1953 SC 210}, K. S. Rashid
and Son v. Income Tax Investigation Commission {AIR 1954 SC 207}
and Lt.Col.Khajoor Singh v. Union of India {AIR 1961 SC 532}, as also
Article 226 as amended thereafter inserting Clause (1A) by the
Constitution (Fifteenth) Amendment Act, 1963, subsequently renumbered
as Clause (2) by the Constitution (Forty-second) Amendment Act, 1976. It
was observed and held that on a plain reading of the amended provisions
in Clause (2), it was clear that now the High Court can issue a writ when a
person or authority against whom the writ is issued is located outside its
territorial jurisdiction, if the cause of action wholly or partially arises within
the territorial jurisdiction.
53. Paragraphs 7 to 9, 14, 15 & 16 of Nawal Kishore Sharma
(supra) are reproduced as under:
“7. The short question that falls for consideration in the facts of the present
case is that as to whether the Patna High Court is correct in taking the view that
it has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. For answering the said
question we would like to consider the provision of Article 226 of the
Constitution as it stood prior to amendment. Originally, Article 226 of the
Constitution reads as under:
11
(2014) 9 SCC 329
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
40
“226.Power of High Courts to issue certain writs.—(1) Notwithstanding
anything in Article 32, every High Court shall have power, throughout the
territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or
authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those
territories, directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas
corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for
the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other
purpose.
(2) The power conferred on a High Court by clause (1) shall not be in
derogation of the power conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (2) of
Article 32.”
8. While interpreting the aforesaid provision, the Constitution Bench of this
Court in Election Commission v. Saka Venkata Rao [(1953) 1 SCC 320 : AIR
1953 SC 210] , held that the writ court would not run beyond the territories
subject to its jurisdiction and that the person or the authority affected by the
writ must be amenable to court's jurisdiction either by residence or location
within those territories. The rule that cause of action attracts jurisdiction in suits
is based on statutory enactment and cannot apply to writs issued under Article
226 of the Constitution which makes no reference to any cause of action or
where it arises but insist on the presence of the person or authority within the
territories in relation to which the High Court exercises jurisdiction. In another
Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in K.S. Rashid and Son v. Income
Tax Investigation Commission [AIR 1954 SC 207] , this Court took the similar
view and held that the writ court cannot exercise its power under Article 226
beyond its territorial jurisdiction. The Court was of the view that the exercise of
power conferred by Article 226 was subject to a twofold limitation viz. firstly,
the power is to be exercised in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction
and secondly, the person or authority on whom the High Court is empowered to
issue writ must be within those territories. These two Constitution Bench
judgments came for consideration before a larger Bench of seven Judges of this
Court in Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh v. Union of India [Lt. Col. Khajoor
Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1961 SC 532] . The Bench approved the
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
41
aforementioned two Constitution Bench judgments and opined that unless there
are clear and compelling reasons, which cannot be denied, writ court cannot
exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution beyond its territorial
jurisdiction.
9. The interpretation given by this Court in the aforesaid decisions resulted
in undue hardship and inconvenience to the citizens to invoke writ jurisdiction.
As a result, clause (1-A) was inserted in Article 226 by the Constitution
(Fifteenth) Amendment Act, 1963 and subsequently renumbered as clause (2)
by the Constitution (Forty-second) Amendment Act, 1976. The amended clause
(2) now reads as under:
“226.Power of High Courts to issue certain writs.—(1) Notwithstanding
anything in Article 32, every High Court shall have power, throughout the
territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or
authority, including in appropriate cases any Government, within those
territories, directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas
corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for
the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other
purpose.
(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to
any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court
exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of
action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding
that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is
not within those territories.
(3)-(4)***”
On a plain reading of the amended provisions in clause (2), it is clear that now
the High Court can issue a writ when the person or the authority against
whom the writ is issued is located outside its territorial jurisdiction, if the
cause of action wholly or partially arises within the court's territorial
jurisdiction. Cause of action for the purpose of Article 226(2) of the
Constitution, for all intent and purpose must be assigned the same meaning as
envisaged under Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The expression
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
42
cause of action has not been defined either in the Code of Civil Procedure or the
Constitution. Cause of action is bundle of facts which is necessary for the
plaintiff to prove in the suit before he can succeed. The term “cause of action”
as appearing in clause (2) came up for consideration time and again before this
Court.
14. In Om Prakash Srivastava v. Union of India [(2006) 6 SCC 207 : (2006)
3 SCC (Cri) 24] , answering a similar question this Court observed that on a
plain reading of clause (2) of Article 226 it is manifestly clear that the High
Court can exercise power to issue direction, order or writs for the enforcement
of any of the fundamental rights or for any other purpose if the cause of action
in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction notwithstanding that the seat of the
Government or authority or the residence of the person against whom the
direction, order or writ is issued is not within the said territory. In para 7 this
Court observed: (SCC p. 210)
“7. The question whether or not cause of action wholly or in part for filing a
writ petition has arisen within the territorial limits of any High Court has to be
decided in the light of the nature and character of the proceedings under Article
226 of the Constitution. In order to maintain a writ petition, a writ petitioner has
to establish that a legal right claimed by him has prima facie either been
infringed or is threatened to be infringed by the respondent within the territorial
limits of the Court's jurisdiction and such infringement may take place by
causing him actual injury or threat thereof.”
15. In Rajendran Chingaravelu v. CIT [(2010) 1 SCC 457 : (2010) 1 SCC
(Cri) 810] , this Court while considering the scope of Article 226(2) of the
Constitution, particularly the cause of action in maintaining a writ petition, held
as under: (SCC p. 461, paras 9 & 11)
“9. The first question that arises for consideration is whether the Andhra
Pradesh High Court was justified in holding that as the seizure took place at
Chennai (Tamil Nadu), the appellant could not maintain the writ petition before
it. The High Court did not examine whether any part of cause of action arose in
Andhra Pradesh. Clause (2) of Article 226 makes it clear that the High Court
exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
43
action arises wholly or in part, will have jurisdiction. This would mean that
even if a small fraction of the cause of action (that bundle of facts which gives a
petitioner, a right to sue) accrued within the territories of Andhra Pradesh, the
High Court of that State will have jurisdiction.
***
11. Normally, we would have set aside the order and remitted the matter to
the High Court for decision on merits. But from the persuasive submissions of
the appellant, who appeared in person on various dates of hearing, two things
stood out. Firstly, it was clear that the main object of the petition was to ensure
that at least in future, passengers like him are not put to unnecessary harassment
or undue hardship at the airports. He wants a direction for issuance of clear
guidelines and instructions to the inspecting officers, and introduction of
definite and efficient verification/investigation procedures. He wants changes in
the present protocol where the officers are uncertain of what to do and seek
instructions and indefinitely wait for clearances from higher-ups for each and
every routine step, resulting in the detention of passengers for hours and hours.
In short, he wants the enquiries, verifications and investigations to be efficient,
passenger-friendly and courteous. Secondly, he wants the Department/officers
concerned to acknowledge that he was unnecessarily harassed.”
16. Regard being had to the discussion made hereinabove, there cannot be
any doubt that the question whether or not cause of action wholly or in part for
filing a writ petition has arisen within the territorial limit of any High Court has
to be decided in the light of the nature and character of the proceedings under
Article 226 of the Constitution. In order to maintain a writ petition, the
petitioner has to establish that a legal right claimed by him has been infringed
by the respondents within the territorial limit of the Court's jurisdiction.”
54. In State of Goa v. Summit Online Trade Solutins (P) Ltd.
12
the
Hon‟ble Apex Court held that while dealing with an objection as to lack of
territorial jurisdiction to entertain writ petition on the ground that the cause
12
(2023) 7 SCC 791
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
44
of action has not arisen within its jurisdiction, that High Court, essentially
has to arrive at a conclusion on the basis of the averments made in the
petition memo treating the contents as true and correct, that is
fundamental principle. The Hon‟ble Apex Court observed that the
determination of a question as to whether the facts pleaded constitute a
part of the cause of action, sufficient to attract clause (2) of Article 226 of
the Constitution, would necessarily involve an exercise by the High Court
to ascertain that the facts, as pleaded, constitute a material, essential or
integral part of the cause of action. In so determining, it is the substance
of the matter that is relevant. It, therefore, follows that the party invoking
the writ jurisdiction has to disclose that the integral facts pleaded in
support of the cause of action do constitute a cause empowering the High
Court to decide the dispute and that, at least, a part of the cause of action
to move the High Court arose within its jurisdiction. Such pleaded facts
must have a nexus with the subject-matter of challenge based on which
the prayer can be granted. Those facts which are not relevant or germane
for grant of the prayer would not give rise to a cause of action conferring
jurisdiction on the court.
55. Paragraphs 14, 15, 16 and 17 of Summit Online Trade
Solutions (P) Ltd. (supra) are reproduced as under:
“14. While dealing with an objection as to lack of territorial jurisdiction to
entertain a writ petition on the ground that the cause of action has not arisen
within its jurisdiction, a High Court essentially has to arrive at a conclusion on
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
45
the basis of the averments made in the petition memo treating the contents as
true and correct. That is the fundamental principle. Bearing this in mind, we
have looked into the petition memo of WP (C) No. 38 of 2017 and searched in
vain to trace how at least part of the cause of action has been pleaded by the
petitioning company, to have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the
High Court.
15. This is a case where clause (2) of Article 226 has been invoked by the
High Court to clothe it with the jurisdiction to entertain and try the writ
petitions. The constitutional mandate of clause (2) is that the “cause of action”,
referred to therein, must at least arise in part within the territories in relation to
which the High Court exercises jurisdiction when writ powers conferred by
clause (1) are proposed to be exercised, notwithstanding that the seat of the
Government or authority or the residence of the person is not within those
territories.
16. The expression “cause of action” has not been defined in the
Constitution. However, the classic definition of “cause of action” given by Lord
Brett in Cooke v. Gill [Cooke v. Gill, (1873) LR 8 CP 107] that “cause of action
means every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if
traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the court”, has been
accepted by this Court in a couple of decisions. It is axiomatic that without a
cause, there cannot be any action. However, in the context of a writ petition,
what would constitute such “cause of action” is the material facts which are
imperative for the writ petitioner to plead and prove to obtain relief as claimed.
17. Determination of the question as to whether the facts pleaded constitute
a part of the cause of action, sufficient to attract clause (2) of Article 226 of the
Constitution, would necessarily involve an exercise by the High Court to
ascertain that the facts, as pleaded, constitute a material, essential or integral
part of the cause of action. In so determining, it is the substance of the matter
that is relevant. It, therefore, follows that the party invoking the writ jurisdiction
has to disclose that the integral facts pleaded in support of the cause of action
do constitute a cause empowering the High Court to decide the dispute and that,
at least, a part of the cause of action to move the High Court arose within its
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
46
jurisdiction. Such pleaded facts must have a nexus with the subject-matter of
challenge based on which the prayer can be granted. Those facts which are not
relevant or germane for grant of the prayer would not give rise to a cause of
action conferring jurisdiction on the court. These are the guiding tests.”
56. Before proceeding further we shall also refer to the
judgments on the point of jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India over the Tribunals.
57. In L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India
13
the Hon‟ble Apex
Court held that the power of judicial review vested in the Supreme Court
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is part of the basic structure of
the Constitution. With respect to the jurisdiction of the High Court under
Article 226, it was observed that all decisions of the Tribunals, whether
created pursuant to Article 323-A or Article 323-B of the Constitution, will
be subject to the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of
the Constitution, before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose
territorial jurisdiction the particular Tribunal falls. It was further observed
that the Tribunals so created are also competent to test the constitutional
validity of statutory provisions and rules. All decisions of the Tribunals will
be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within
whose jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned falls and it will not be open for
the litigants to directly approach the High Court even in the cases
13
(1997) 3 SCC 261
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
47
questioning the vires of statutory legislations except where the legislation
which creates the particular Tribunal is challenged.
58. Relevant paragraphs 90 to 92 of L. Chandra Kumar (supra)
read as under:
“90. We may first address the issue of exclusion of the power of judicial
review of the High Courts. We have already held that in respect of the power of
judicial review, the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226/227
cannot wholly be excluded. It has been contended before us that the Tribunals
should not be allowed to adjudicate upon matters where the vires of legislations
is questioned, and that they should restrict themselves to handling matters
where constitutional issues are not raised. We cannot bring ourselves to agree to
this proposition as that may result in splitting up proceedings and may cause
avoidable delay. If such a view were to be adopted, it would be open for
litigants to raise constitutional issues, many of which may be quite frivolous, to
directly approach the High Courts and thus subvert the jurisdiction of the
Tribunals. Moreover, even in these special branches of law, some areas do
involve the consideration of constitutional questions on a regular basis; for
instance, in service law matters, a large majority of cases involve an
interpretation of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution. To hold that the
Tribunals have no power to handle matters involving constitutional issues
would not serve the purpose for which they were constituted. On the other
hand, to hold that all such decisions will be subject to the jurisdiction of the
High Courts under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution before a Division
Bench of the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the Tribunal
concerned falls will serve two purposes. While saving the power of judicial
review of legislative action vested in the High Courts under Articles 226/227 of
the Constitution, it will ensure that frivolous claims are filtered out through the
process of adjudication in the Tribunal. The High Court will also have the
benefit of a reasoned decision on merits which will be of use to it in finally
deciding the matter.
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
48
91. It has also been contended before us that even in dealing with cases
which are properly before the Tribunals, the manner in which justice is
dispensed by them leaves much to be desired. Moreover, the remedy provided
in the parent statutes, by way of an appeal by special leave under Article 136 of
the Constitution, is too costly and inaccessible for it to be real and effective.
Furthermore, the result of providing such a remedy is that the docket of the
Supreme Court is crowded with decisions of Tribunals that are challenged on
relatively trivial grounds and it is forced to perform the role of a first appellate
court. We have already emphasised the necessity for ensuring that the High
Courts are able to exercise judicial superintendence over the decisions of the
Tribunals under Article 227 of the Constitution. In R.K. Jain case [(1993) 4
SCC 119 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 1128 : (1993) 25 ATC 464] , after taking note of
these facts, it was suggested that the possibility of an appeal from the Tribunal
on questions of law to a Division Bench of a High Court within whose
territorial jurisdiction the Tribunal falls, be pursued. It appears that no follow-
up action has been taken pursuant to the suggestion. Such a measure would
have improved matters considerably. Having regard to both the aforestated
contentions, we hold that all decisions of Tribunals, whether created
pursuant to Article 323-A or Article 323-B of the Constitution, will be
subject to the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution, before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose
territorial jurisdiction the particular Tribunal falls.
92. We may add here that under the existing system, direct appeals have
been provided from the decisions of all Tribunals to the Supreme Court under
Article 136 of the Constitution. In view of our above-mentioned observations,
this situation will also stand modified. In the view that we have taken, no appeal
from the decision of a Tribunal will directly lie before the Supreme Court under
Article 136 of the Constitution; but instead, the aggrieved party will be entitled
to move the High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution and from the
decision of the Division Bench of the High Court the aggrieved party could
move this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.”
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
49
59. Recently, in State of H.P. v. Yogendera Mohan Sengupta
14
the Hon‟ble Apex Court reiterated that the High Court exercises the
review jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution over the orders of
the Tribunals. The power of judicial review vested with the High Courts
under Article 226 of the Constitution and the Hon‟ble Apex Court under
Article 32 of the Constitution, is an integral and essential feature of the
Constitution, constituting part of its basic structure and therefore, the
power of High Courts and the Supreme Court to test the constitutional
validity of legislations can never be ousted or excluded. That power
vested in the High Courts to exercise judicial superintendence over the
decisions of all Courts and Tribunals within their respective jurisdictions is
part of the basic structure of the Constitution. In Yogender Mohan
Sengupta (supra) the Hon‟ble Apex Court referred to the judgment in L.
Chandra Kumar (supra).
60. Paragraphs 103, 104, 105, 108 and 109 of Yogender Mohan
Sengupta (supra) read as under:
“103. A Constitution Bench of this Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of
India [L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261 : 1997 SCC
(L&S) 577 : (1997) 228 ITR 725 : (1997) 105 STC 618] was considering the
issue regarding ouster of jurisdiction of this Court and the High Courts under
Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India as was provided under the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short “the AT Act”). The AT Act was
constituted under the enabling provisions of Article 323-A of the Constitution
of India. Sub-clause (d) of clause (2) of Article 323-A specifically enables
14
(2024) 13 SCC 1
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
50
Parliament to legislate a law for establishment of the AT Act and also provides
for exclusion of jurisdiction of all the courts except jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 136 with respect to disputes or complaints referred to in clause
(1).
104. This Court in L. Chandra Kumar [L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of
India, (1997) 3 SCC 261 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 577 : (1997) 228 ITR 725 : (1997)
105 STC 618] after scanning the entire law on the question as to whether the
powers of this Court and High Courts of judicial review as could be found in
Articles 32 and 226 respectively, amounts to basic structure or not, observed
thus in paras 78 and 79: (L. Chandra Kumar case [L. Chandra Kumar v. Union
of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 577 : (1997) 228 ITR 725 :
(1997) 105 STC 618] , SCC pp. 301-302)
“78. The legitimacy of the power of courts within constitutional
democracies to review legislative action has been questioned since the time it
was first conceived. The Constitution of India, being alive to such criticism,
has, while conferring such power upon the higher judiciary, incorporated
important safeguards. An analysis of the manner in which the Framers of our
Constitution incorporated provisions relating to the judiciary would indicate
that they were very greatly concerned with securing the independence of the
judiciary [Per Ahmadi, C.J.—See Chapter VII, “The Judiciary and the Social
Revolution” in Granville Austin, The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a
Nation, Oxford University Press, 1972; the chapter includes exhaustive
references to the relevant preparatory works and debates in the Constituent
Assembly.] . These attempts were directed at ensuring that the judiciary would
be capable of effectively discharging its wide powers of judicial review. While
the Constitution confers the power to strike down laws upon the High Courts
and the Supreme Court, it also contains elaborate provisions dealing with the
tenure, salaries, allowances, retirement age of Judges as well as the mechanism
for selecting Judges to the superior courts. The inclusion of such elaborate
provisions appears to have been occasioned by the belief that, armed by such
provisions, the superior courts would be insulated from any executive or
legislative attempts to interfere with the making of their decisions. The Judges
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
51
of the superior courts have been entrusted with the task of upholding the
Constitution and to this end, have been conferred the power to interpret it. It is
they who have to ensure that the balance of power envisaged by the
Constitution is maintained and that the legislature and the executive do not, in
the discharge of their functions, transgress constitutional limitations. It is
equally their duty to oversee that the judicial decisions rendered by those who
man the subordinate courts and tribunals do not fall foul of strict standards of
legal correctness and judicial independence. The constitutional safeguards
which ensure the independence of the Judges of the superior judiciary, are not
available to the Judges of the subordinate judiciary or to those who man
tribunals created by ordinary legislations. Consequently, Judges of the latter
category can never be considered full and effective substitutes for the superior
judiciary in discharging the function of constitutional interpretation. We,
therefore, hold that the power of judicial review over legislative action vested in
the High Courts under Article 226 and in this Court under Article 32 of the
Constitution is an integral and essential feature of the Constitution, constituting
part of its basic structure. Ordinarily, therefore, the power of High Courts and
the Supreme Court to test the constitutional validity of legislations can never be
ousted or excluded.
79. We also hold that the power vested in the High Courts to exercise
judicial superintendence over the decisions of all courts and tribunals within
their respective jurisdictions is also part of the basic structure of the
Constitution. This is because a situation where the High Courts are divested of
all other judicial functions apart from that of constitutional interpretation, is
equally to be avoided.”
105. It could thus be clearly seen that this Court, even when a provision in
the Constitution enabled Parliament to make a law thereby excluding the
powers of judicial review except under Article 136 of the Constitution, held that
the power of judicial review vested in the High Courts under Article 226 and in
this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, is an integral and essential
feature of the Constitution, constituting part of its basic structure and, therefore,
the power of High Courts and this Court to test the constitutional validity of
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
52
legislations can never be ousted or excluded. This Court further goes on to
observe that the power vested in the High Courts to exercise judicial
superintendence over the decisions of all courts and tribunals within their
respective jurisdictions is also part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
108. The perusal of para 92 of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in L.
Chandra Kumar case [L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261
: 1997 SCC (L&S) 577 : (1997) 228 ITR 725 : (1997) 105 STC 618] would
further reveal that the function of the tribunals is only supplementary and all
such decisions of the tribunals would be subject to scrutiny before the Division
Bench of respective High Courts. The Constitution Bench holds that all such
tribunals will continue to act as the only courts of first instance in respect of
areas of law for which they have been constituted. It has been held that it will
not be open for a litigant to directly approach the High Courts even in cases
where the question of vires of statutory legislations (except as mentioned where
the legislations which create the particular legislation quaere tribunal) is
challenged by availing the jurisdiction of the tribunal concerned.
109. It could thus clearly be seen that it is a settled position of law that the
High Courts exercise the power of judicial review over all the tribunals which
are situated within its jurisdiction.”
61. In the present case, the O.A was filed by the applicant at
Vijayawada in Andhra Pradesh. It was numbered as the subject or the
case from Andhra Pradesh. The Circuit Bench of the Central
Administrative Tribunal is located at Vijayawada. The O.A was though
decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad, it was, as
the case from Andhra Pradesh. In the background of these facts, we are
of the view that it cannot be held that the Central Administrative Tribunal
deciding the O.A, as the O.A from Andhra Pradesh, is outside the
territorial jurisdiction of this High Court for the purposes of Article 226 or
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
53
227 of the Constitution. To hold to the contrary is beyond reasonable
limits. It cannot be held reasonably that because the Central
Administrative Tribunal is situated at Hyderabad, though it entertains the
cases for the State of Andhra Pradesh as well, it will be outside the
territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
62. The averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ
petition are clear that the respondent/applicant was working at Guntakal
Division in the State of Andhra Pradesh. He was charged for the offences
punishable under Section 61 (2) of BNSS Act 2023 and criminal
conspiracy under Sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of Prevention of Corruption
Act. He was apprehended along with other employees while CBI laying a
trap and the said crime was under the active investigation by CBI. The
respondent was detained beyond 48 hours by CBI. He was placed under
suspension while working at Guntakal Division in Andhra Pradesh. The
Order of Suspension was extended periodically and finally it was revoked
vide proceedings dated 26.08.2025. The respondent was transferred
from South Central Railway with immediate effect to North Eastern
Railway vide office order dated 29.08.2025. He was relieved on
01.09.2025 against the existing vacancy at North Eastern Railway. He
filed O.A. The O.A. was filed at Vijayawada registered as a case from
Andhra Pradesh which is evident from its number O.A.No.933 of 2025
(Andhra Pradesh). When interim order was not granted, he approached
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
54
the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in W.P.No.29679
of 2025 which was disposed of vide Order dated 26.09.2025 with
direction to the Central Administrative Tribunal to dispose of the stay
application within a specified time and directed that the respondent shall
continue at Guntakal till the stay application was adjudicated. The
respondent then reported to duty on 17.10.2025. He also made a
representation to the Authority on 17.10.20205 with a request to post him
to a non-sensitive post at Guntakal of South Central Railway
Headquarters. His request vide representation was deferred.
63. Thus, the settled position in law with respect to the jurisdiction
of the High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, over
the orders passed by the Tribunal is that the High Court has such
jurisdiction of judicial review, to be exercised by the Division Bench. The
Central Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad has the jurisdiction for both
the States (State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh). So, it
cannot be said that for all the O.A(s) decided by the Central
Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad, the territorial jurisdiction for a
petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India shall be only at
High Court for the State of Telangana. An O.A. relating to Andhra
Pradesh though decided by Central Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad,
the judgment in such an O.A., can be challenged in Andhra Pradesh. The
CAT at Hyderabad for such case shall be within the territorial jurisdiction
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
55
of High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The same shall be the position if the
part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the A.P
High Court. The OA decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal at
Hyderabad in case of part of cause of action falling in Andhra Pradesh
and the part in State of Telangana, both the High Courts shall have the
territorial jurisdiction and in such a case the applicant shall have to
exercise the choice of Forum.
64. Learned counsel for the respondents (applicant) submitted
that prior to the final order dated 28.01.2026 passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A.No.020/0933/202 the Guntkal
Division stood operationally reorganized and merged into the newly
formed South Coastal Railway (SCoR) Zone, with its Zonal Headquarters
at Visakhapatnam. He submitted that the applicant/respondent reported
to the South Central Railway Headquarters at Telangana on 17.10.2025.
The respondent/applicant was illegally implicated in the F.I.R
No.Rc2182024/A0013 of 2024 of CBI AC -III, New Delhi dated
04.07.2024. He was granted bail by this Court on 02.08.2024 in I.A.No.1
of 2024 in Crl.R.C.No.620 of 2024. The applicant was suspended with
effect from 05.07.2024 vide the order No.FA/CON/DAR/KPB/2024 dated
08.07.2024. The suspension was ultimately revoked on 27.08.2025. The
applicant was directed to report at the Headquarters of SCR at
Secunderabad from Guntkal and consequently he reported at
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
56
Secunderabad. He stationed there since October, 2025. He further
submitted that the applicant was not allotted a residential quarter at
Secunderabad and was permitted to avail accommodation and
constrained by the requirement of specialized medical treatment at
Hyderabad his address for stay of his family by convenience was shown
at Guntkal. The applicant was not serving at Guntkal Railway Department
since he reported to the South Central Railways at Secunderabad. He
submitted that the applicant approached the High Court for the State of
Telangana by filing W.P.No.29679 of 2025 and the same was disposed of
by order dated 26.09.2025. It attained finality so the jurisdiction cannot be
with High Court of Andhra Pradesh but shall be with the High Court for
the State of Telangana. The aforesaid submission deserves rejection.
Even if objection to the jurisdiction of High Court for the State of
Telangana was not raised in W.P.No.29679 of 2025, that does not mean
that the High Court for the State of Telangana shall have jurisdiction for
all the times, even if part of cause of action has arisen in the territorial
jurisdiction of Andhra Pradesh High Court. It is also well settled that on
the point of jurisdiction there cannot be an estoppels.
65. The submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents
that judicial scrutiny over a Central Administrative Tribunal‟s order must
be maintained before the Division Bench of the High Court within whose
territorial jurisdiction it is situated i.e High Court for the State of
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
57
Telangana, is not sustainable. The reason is that the applicant, while his
posting at Guntkal (AP), was placed under suspension. The suspension
was revoked on 27.08.2025. He was transferred on 29.08.2025. So, he
was transferred, infact, while he was posted at Guntkal in Andhra
Pradesh. So, the part of cause of action is certainly within the State of
Andhra Pradesh falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court. Further, the applicant challenged the order of
transfer by filing the O.A.No.933 of 2025 at CAT/HYD Bench at
Vijayawada on 23.09.2025 (Ex.P.2 to the rejoinder appended). The
Central Administrative Tribunal conducted many hearings at the Circuit
Bench at Vijayawada i.e on 23.09.2025, 17.10.2025, 30.10.2025 and
21.11.2025. Then the O.A was transferred to CAT-Hyderabad on
21.11.2025 and it was directed to be listed on 1.12.2025 at CAT,
Hyderabad Bench and it was disposed o f on 28.01.2026. These
averments are supported by Exs.P.1 and P.2 to the rejoinder affidavit.
The applicant‟s own case in his counter is that since October, 2025, he
has been at Headquarters of SCR at Secunderabad. The order of
transfer is dated 29.08.2025. The said order was passed transferring the
applicant from Guntkal from where he had been relieved on 01.09.2025.
66. The law is well settled that even if a part of cause of action
occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court, it shall have
jurisdiction. The part of the cause of action may be very small fraction of
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
58
the whole cause of action. Then the said High Court shall have the
jurisdiction. Transfer from a place in Andhra Pradesh and filing O.A in
State of A.P challenging the order of transfer constituted, in any case,
part of cause of action for filing writ petition within the territorial jurisdiction
of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. This Court will have the jurisdiction
to entertain the writ petition. The submission of the learned counsel for
the respondent that the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court for the
purpose of Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not to be determined
based on the cause of action is misconceived and contrary to the settled
legal position as discussed in the earlier part of this judgment.
67. Learned counsel for the respondent/applicant placed reliance
in the case of Baksish Ahmad (supra) to contend that the Delhi High
Court was held to have territorial jurisdiction because of the situs of the
office of the Union of India and since situs of the authority in the present
case is not in the State of Andhra Pradesh, in the absence of such situs,
the High Court of Andhra Pradesh will have no jurisdiction. Para 27 of
Baksish Ahmad (supra) read as under:
“27. Be that as it may, to reconcile the conflict, if any, we
hold that in case any member of the CAPF, and that includes
the BSF, is aggrieved by any administrative order of
termination of his service issued by the competent authority,
notwithstanding that the cause of action arose outside, i.e., the
said order was issued from a place beyond the territorial limits
of the Delhi High Court or that the events which triggered such
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
59
an order occurred outside its limits, etc., still the Delhi High
Court would have territorial jurisdiction in light of situs of office
of the Union of India and the Director General, BSF/the officer
in whom is vested supervision and command of the other
CAPF, as per clause (1) of Article 226.
68. In Baksish Ahmad (supra), it was held that notwithstanding
that the cause of action arose outside the territorial limits of the Delhi High
Court or that the events which triggered such an order occurred outside
its limits, etc., still the Delhi High Court would have territorial jurisdiction in
light of situs of office of the Union of India and the Director General,
BSF/the officer in whom is vested supervision and command of the other
CAPF, as per clause (1) of Article 226.
69. We are of the view that the aforesaid submission of the
learned counsel for the respondent is not the correct understanding of the
judgment in Baksish Ahmad (supra). In the said case, the Hon‟ble Apex
Court held that because of the situs, at New Delhi, the Delhi High Court
shall also have the jurisdiction. The Hon‟ble Apex Court did not hold that
the only jurisdiction was with the Delhi High Court. It has also not been
held that the cause of action which occurred outside the Delhi High Court
territorial jurisdiction, and if falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the
other High Court as well, based on the cause of action such other High
Court will have no jurisdiction.
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
60
70. In Union of India vs. Alapan Bandyopadhyay
15
upon which
also learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance, the cause of
action did not occur within the territorial jurisdiction of the Calcutta High
Court with respect to order of transfer of O.A made by the Principal Bench
at New Delhi of the Tribunal in exercise of power under Section 25 of the
Central Administrative Tribunal Act, which order of the Principal Bench at
New Delhi was interfered with by the High Court of Calcutta. It is so
evident from para 32 which read as under:
“32. When once the High Court found the order
[Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions v. Alapan
Bandyopadhyay, 2021 SCC OnLine CAT 3242] impugned as
one passed by the Principal Bench we have no hesitation to
hold that the High Court should have confined its consideration
firstly, to decide its own territorial jurisdiction for exercising the
power of judicial review over the order dated 22-10-2021
passed by the Principal Bench in Personnel, Public Grievances
and Pensions v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay [Personnel, Public
Grievances and Pensions v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay, 2021
SCC OnLine CAT 3242] in the correct perspective, without
reference to the bundle of facts constituting the cause of action
for filing OA No. 1619 of 2021 before the Kolkata Bench of the
Tribunal founded on the cause of action referred to in Rule 6(2)
of the Procedure Rules that decides the place of filing of an OA.
To wit, those bundle of facts which would be necessary for the
applicant to prove, if traversed, in order to support the right to a
judgment from that Bench of the Tribunal. In such
15
(2022) 3 SCC 133
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
61
circumstances, the question of infringement or otherwise of the
right of the respondent herein to litigate before the Kolkata
Bench of the Tribunal could not have been gone into, on merits,
without deciding the seminal question whether the High Court of
Calcutta itself had jurisdiction to undertake judicial review of the
order passed by the Chairman in exercise of power under
Section 25 at the Principal seat of the Tribunal at New Delhi we
do not have any hesitation in holding that the High Court at
Calcutta could not have entertained the writ petition.”
71. In the present case, certainly the cause of action is within the
territorial jurisdiction of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
72. We are of the considered view that the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh shall have the territorial jurisdiction.
73. We accordingly hold on point No.A that Andhra Pradesh High
Court has the jurisdiction.
Point-B Legality of the impugned order:
74. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
applicant could be transferred on administrative exigencies. It is not that
the applicant unless reaches the selection Grade cannot be transferred.
The applicant had no statutory right to continue at the place of his choice.
The guidelines for transfer are non-statutory and the respondent/applicant
has no legal right to be posted at particular place under the guidelines
which are enforceable under law.
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
62
75. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the ground
of illness etc were never reported to the petitioner. It was for the first time
so mentioned in the O.A, after receipt of the order of transfer. The
decision for transfer of the applicant was taken by the competent
authority. It has the approval of the President of India since his service
were duly necessitated at the transferred railway zone into the existing
vacancy. The transfer was not punitive but in administrative exigency.
The applicant did not submit any kind of request and the order of transfer
was challenged in O.A after almost one month. He placed reliance in
S.C. Sexena vs. Union of India and others
16
to contend that even in
case of violation of the non-statutory guidelines, an order of transfer is not
to be set aside. The Central Administrative Tribunal has set aside the
order of transfer based only on the alleged inconveniences that might be
faced, because of the transfer. There are no statutory grounds available
to the applicant to challenge the order of transfer. It has not been set
aside on any legally permissible grounds. There must be the judicially
recognized grounds for interference with the order of transfer. He further
submitted that; in the case of the Co-accused, there was vacancy
whereas there is no vacancy existing on non-sensitive post. That cited
judgment has no relevancy in the case of the applicant. The grounds on
which the order of transfer has been set aside are legally impermissible.
16
2006(9)SCC 583
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
63
76. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted on merits that
the impugned transfer order contravenes the office Order No.E(O)-
III/2014/PL/05 dated 31.08.2015 of the Railway Board, Ministry of
Railways, Government of India as under it a Group-A Officer (respondent)
will not be transferred out of his allotted Zone/Unit till Section Grade. The
respondent did not get selection grade. He submitted that the Railway
Board had issued certain guidelines dated 12.02.2018 stating that
Critical/Terminal illness of dependents requiring staying at a station for
the sake of continuity of treatment can be considered on case to case
basis. He submitted that the illness conditions of the dependents of the
applicant as also of the applicant taking medical leave by applying at
Hyderabad, the order of transfer, violated the Railway Board proceedings
dated 14.05.2018. He submitted that there was violation of the Railway
Board‟s letter in E(O)III-2014/PL/03 dated 10.06.2014. There was
violation of the transfer policy. While transferring, the employer must look
into the personal inconveniences of the employee. The transfer was at a
distant place at Gorakhpur in North Eastern Railway (NER). The
applicant could not be denied the basic service conditions, nor the
applicant‟s family. The applicant had to attend the pending case. He
further submitted that in the case of a co-accused namely U. Akki Reddy,
who was also transferred to a different zone, had filed the
O.A.No.021/940/25 before the Central Administrative Tribunal,
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
64
Hyderabad Bench, which had been allowed by order dated 06.03.2026,
setting aside the order of his transfer. So, the applicant is also entitled for
equality. The order of Tribunal deserves not to be interfered.
77. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that
prior to the final order dated 25.01.2026 in O.A, the Guntakal was
operationally reorganized and merged in newly formed South Central
Railway, SCOR, Zone with its Zonal Headquarters at Visakhapatnam has
been disputed and denied by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner
submitting that, on the date of the judgment dated 28.1.2026 by the
Central Administrative Tribunal, no final notification was released or
published by the Central Government for such reorganization. So, the
applicant‟s transfer was from South Central Railway, Guntkal and not
from South Coastal Railway Zone.
78. We have considered the above submissions in Point-B and
are of the view that the transfer order has been set aside on the reasons
assigned in the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal and that is,
the alleged inconvenience to the applicant and his family. The
observation made is that the material placed before the Tribunal by the
applicant showed the hardships of the applicant so it warranted
consideration and interference. A reading of the impugned order shows
that, what prevailed is only inconvenience, due to the order of transfer.
Legally, on such ground an order of transfer should not be interfered with.
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
65
In every transfer there is bound to be some inconvenience. It is well
settled that the judicial review of an order of transfer is permissible, only
on grounds of violation of the statute or mala fide. It is settled that even if
there is violation of non statutory transfer policy it would not vitiate the
order of transfer. There is no right for enforcement of the guidelines on
transfer unless those guidelines are statutory in nature. Based on the
inconveniences or hardship, it is for the applicant to file application for
consideration of his case by the competent departmental authorities. The
applicant did not file any response before the authority.
79. In Union of India and others vs. S.L. Abbas,
17
the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court held in paras 6 and 7 as under:
“6. An order of transfer is an incident of Government
service. Fundamental Rule 11 says that “the whole time
of a Government servant is at the disposal of the
Government which pays him and he may be employed in
any manner required by proper authority”. Fundamental
Rule 15 says that “the President may transfer a
Government servant from one post to another”. That the
respondent is liable to transfer anywhere in India is not in
dispute. It is not the case of the respondent that the order
of his transfer is vitiated by mala fides on the part of the
authority making the order, — though the Tribunal does
say so merely because certain guidelines issued by the
Central Government are not followed, with which finding
we shall deal later. The respondent attributed “mischief”
17
(1997) 4 SCC 357
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
66
to his immediate superior who had nothing to do with his
transfer. All he says is that he should not be transferred
because his wife is working at Shillong, his children are
studying there and also because his health had suffered
a setback some time ago. He relies upon certain
executive instructions issued by the Government in that
behalf. Those instructions are in the nature of guidelines.
They do not have statutory force.
7. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the
appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of
transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of
any statutory provisions, the court cannot interfere with it.
While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the
authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the
Government on the subject. Similarly if a person makes
any representation with respect to his transfer, the
appropriate authority must consider the same having
regard to the exigencies of administration. The guidelines
say that as far as possible, husband and wife must be
posted at the same place. The said guideline however
does not confer upon the Government employee a legally
enforceable right.”
80. In Sri Pubi Lombi vs. State of Arunachala Pradesh (Civil
Appeal No.4129 of 2024 dated 13.03.2024), it was held in paras 9 and
10 which read as under:
“9. In the case of Union of India and others Vs. S.L. Abbas;
(1993) 4 SCC 357, it is clearly observed by this Court that the
scope of judicial review is only available when there is a clear
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
67
violation of statutory provision or the transfer is persuaded by
malafide, non-observation of executive instructions does not
confer a legally enforceable right to an employee holding a
transferable post. The relevant paragraph reads as under:
“7. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the
appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer
is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any
statutory provisions, the court cannot interfere with it. While
ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must
keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on
the subject……..”
9.1 Further, following the footsteps of S.L. Abbas (supra) this
Court in the case of Union of India and another Vs. N.P.
Thomas; 1993 Supp (1) SCC 704 held that the interference
by the Court in an order of transfer on the instance of an
employee holding a transferrable post without any violation
of statutory provision is not permissible.
9.2 This Court further curtailed the scope of judicial review in
the case of N.K. Singh Vs. Union of India and others;
(1994) 6 SCC 98 holding that the person challenging the
transfer ought to prove on facts that such transfer is
prejudicial to public interest. It was further reiterated that
interference is only justified in a case of malafide or infraction
of any professed norm or principle. Moreover, in the cases
where the career prospects of a person challenging transfer
remain unaffected and no detriment is caused, interference
to the transfer must be eschewed. It is further held that the
evidence requires to prove such transfer is prejudicial and in
absence thereof interference is not warranted. The law
reiterated by this Court is reproduced, in following words: -
“9. Transfer of a public servant from a significant post can be
prejudicial to public interest only if the transfer was avoidable
and the successor is not suitable for the post. Suitability is a
matter for objective assessment by the hierarchical superiors
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
68
in administration. To introduce and rely on the element of
prejudice to public interest as a vitiating factor of the transfer
of a public servant, it must be first pleaded and proved that
the replacement was by a person not suitable for the
important post and the transfer was avoidable. Unless this is
pleaded and proved at the threshold, no further inquiry into
this aspect is necessary and its absence is sufficient to
exclude this factor from consideration as a vitiating element
in the impugned transfer. Accordingly, this aspect requires
consideration at the outset.
XXX XXX XXX
“23. …….Unless the decision is vitiated by mala fides or
infraction of any professed norm or principle governing the
transfer, which alone can be scrutinised judicially, there are
no judicially manageable standards for scrutinising all
transfers and the courts lack the necessary expertise for
personnel management of all government departments. This
must be left, in public interest, to the departmental heads
subject to the limited judicial scrutiny indicated.”
“24. …Challenge in courts of a transfer when the career
prospects remain unaffected and there is no detriment to the
government servant must be eschewed and interference by
courts should be rare, only when a judicially manageable
and permissible ground is made out. This litigation was ill-
advised.”
9.3 The issue involved in the present case is somewhat
similar in the case of Mohd. Masood Ahmad Vs. State of
U.P. and others; (2007) 8 SCC 150 wherein this Court in
paragraph 8 has observed as thus: -
“8. ….. In our opinion, even if the allegation of the appellant
is correct that he was transferred on the recommendation of
an MLA, that by itself would not vitiate the transfer order.
After all, it is the duty of the representatives of the people in
the legislature to express the grievances of the people and if
there is any complaint against an official the State
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
69
Government is certainly within its jurisdiction to transfer such
an employee……”
9.4 It is not tangential to mention that this Court in the case
of State of Punjab Vs. Joginder Singh Dhatt; AIR 1993 SC
2486 observed as thus: -
“3……..It is entirely for the employer to decide when, where
and at what point of time a public servant is transferred from
his present posting………”
9.5 It is also imperative to refer the judgement of this Court in
the case of Ratnagiri Gas and Power Private Limited Vs.
RDS Projects Limited and Ors.; (2013) 1 SCC 524 where it
reiterated one of the pertinent principles of administrative law
is that when allegations of malafide are made, the persons
against whom the same are levelled need to be impleaded
as parties to the proceedings to enable them to answer. The
relevant excerpt is reproduced as thus:
“27. There is yet another aspect which cannot be ignored. As
and when allegations of mala fides are made, the persons
against whom the same are levelled need to be impleaded
as parties to the proceedings to enable them to answer the
charge. In the absence of the person concerned as a party in
his/her individual capacity it will neither be fair nor proper to
record a finding that malice in fact had vitiated the action
taken by the authority concerned……..”
10. In view of the foregoing enunciation of law by judicial
decisions of this Court, it is clear that in absence of (i) pleadings
regarding malafide, (ii) non-joining the person against whom
allegation are made, (iii) violation of any statutory provision (iv)
the allegation of the transfer being detrimental to the employee
who is holding a transferrable post, judicial interference is not
warranted. In the sequel of the said settled norms, the scope of
judicial review is not permissible by the Courts in exercising of
the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
70
81. Law is well settled, as been held in S.C. Sexena (supra) that
a Government servant cannot disobey a transfer order by not reporting at
the place of posting. Paras 6 and 8 read as follows:
“6. We have perused the record with the help of the
learned counsel and heard the learned counsel very patiently.
We find that no case for our interference whatsoever has been
made out. In the first place, a government servant cannot
disobey a transfer order by not reporting at the place of posting
and then go to a court to ventilate his grievances. It is his duty
to first report for work where he is transferred and make a
representation as to what may be his personal problems. This
tendency of not reporting at the place of posting and indulging
in litigation needs to be curbed. Apart therefrom, if the appellant
really had some genuine difficulty in reporting for work at
Tezpur, he could have reported for duty at Amritsar where he
was so posted. We too decline to believe the story of his
remaining sick. Assuming there was some sickness, we are not
satisfied that it prevented him from joining duty either at Tezpur
or at Amritsar. The medical certificate issued by Dr. Ram
Manohar Lohia Hospital proves this point. In the circumstances,
we too are of the opinion that the appellant was guilty of the
misconduct of unauthorisedly remaining absent from duty.
8. A final, if we may say so, desperate argument was made
that the appellant had sufficient leave to his credit and,
therefore, the respondents should have taken a liberal view in
the matter and permitted him to resume duty when he
attempted to resume in the year 1992 by sanctioning the leave
that was available to his credit. In our view, the argument
cannot be countenanced. Acceding to such an argument by
courts, particularly this Court, has led to and will continue to
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
71
lead to gross indiscipline in public service. We are unable to
accept such an argument.”
VII. Conclusions:
82. Thus, considered our conclusions on the points A and B are
as under:
A. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has territorial jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India over the subject
matter as i) the order of the transfer was passed transferring the
respondent applicant from Guntakal (in A.P) and ii) the O.A
challenging the order of transfer was filed at the Vijayawada
vide Circuit Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal,
Hyderabad (AP), it was heard on many dates at Circuit Bench
Vijayawada and though finally decided at Central Administrative
Tribunal at Hyderabad, it was decided as an O.A from A.P, as
the Central Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad is for both the
States. iii) The cause of action to maintain the writ petition is in
Andhra Pradesh.
B. The Central Administrative Tribunal acted illegally in interfering with
the order of transfer on legally unsustainable grounds and not
on any judicially recognized grounds of i) violation of statutory
provisions, ii) Mala fide etc. The impugned order of the Tribunal
deserves to be set aside.
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
72
VIII. Result:
83. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated
28.01.2026 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad
Bench, Hyderabad in O.A.No.020/0933/2025 is quashed/set aside.
No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in
consequence.
______________________
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J
_____________________________________
PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI , J
Date:29.09.2026
Note:
L.R copy to be marked.
B/o.
Dsr/Gk
Whether the order is:
Reasoned „Yes‟
Reportable „Yes‟
RNT, J & PKC, J
WP. No.16397 of 2026
73
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
&
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR
CHINTALAPUDI
WRIT PETITION NO: 16397 of 2026
Date:29.09.2026
Dsr/Gk
Login with google
Legal Notes
Add a Note....