Thread by @barandbench

The central government has moved Supreme Court challenging a Calcutta HC order quashing CAT decision to uphold the transfer of disciplinary proceedings case against former West Bengal Chief Secretary Alapan Badhopadhyay out of Bengal to New Delhi
@MamataOfficial #supremecourt

@MamataOfficial The appeal states that Calcutta High Court grossly erred in making the baseless, unfounded, unjust, unfair, and unfortunate remark that the CAT order was passed by “paying obeisance to the diktat of the Union of India”. #CAT #SupremeCourt
@MamataOfficial

@DoPTGoI

Justice AM Khanwilkar led bench of the #SupremeCourt to shortly hear the case today
@MamataOfficial

@DoPTGoI

SG Tushar Mehta: this is a disturbing order both on the territorial jurisdiction of HC and some observations made. He was called since he was not present at a PM review meeting. He challenged disciplinary proceeding before CAT. Centre sought transfer to Delhi

SG: Please look at powers of chairman of CAT. Some disturbing remarks have been made about the chairman

SC: Some comments we will set aside, that is okay

SG: I am on if order of CAT can be interfered with.

SC: HC says he has retired and he can appear at the place of residence

SG: I am saying Calcutta HC has no jurisdiction to pass an order against the Chairman of CAT in New Delhi, Delhi HC could have passed the order.

Judges discuss with each other

SG: i can draw a little distinction..question is not whether order of chairman is correct or wrong. even if its wrong can Calcutta high court interfere and set it aside?

SC: The proceedings impacted by the order of CAT was in Calcutta, therefore HC says we have jurisdiction what is wrong with that?

SG: Please see the way order is passed. Observations made could have never been made. the loose language by litigants is not permitted.. writing letters leaking to media is ok.. nobody can challenge but such an order fro constitutional court assumes importance.

SC: Who is appearing for the respondent?

Dr Abhishekh Manu Singhvi: in lighter vein i am surprised to see three law officers appearing in this case
this officer has spent his entire life in west bengal

SC: How many law officers are assisting you @DrAMSinghvi ?

SC: Language we can take note of and we can expunge the same, on merits of the case main proceedings are filed in Calcutta. impugned order passed is affecting those proceedings, then calcutta hc has jurisdiction. respondent resides there too.

SC: Rest of the matters and respondent was entitled to file in HC was due to Rule 2.

SG: it has wider ramifications..

SC: That is not a point to proceed on

SG: There was a case where an officer said he is in Delhi ordinarily but travels to Chandigarh too and that is why he approached the Punjab and haryana HC... this thing can be abused and say that i ordinarily reside there and confer jurisdiction on the hc.

SC: It was there already before the order was passed..which is the case prohibiting filing of petition in CalCutta HC. Rules permit it and there is no issue

SG: Question is can an officer retired or dismissed file say they ordinarily reside in some place to confer jurisdiction

SG: Can the person approach another HC to get the chairman of CAT order set aside. it has wider ramifications

SC: Which judgment are you relying on?

SG: UOI vs Sai Nath

SG: I can circulate the judgments and have this case tomorrow.

SC: We can have this case on Thursday

Singhvi: please ask Mr Mehta to circulate the cases to us as well so that we can submit a note

Next date modified to November 22, 2021

#supremecourt