The Allahabad High Court has sought a response from the Central Government on the issue of the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in New Delhi entertaining fresh cases that fall under the territorial jurisdiction of the CAT Bench at Allahabad. The Court has questioned the legality of such jurisdictional overreach by the Principal Bench.
Justice Ajit Kumar, while hearing a writ petition filed by Rajesh Pratap Singh, noted that the Chairman of the Principal Bench has misinterpreted Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which pertains to the transfer of cases. The judge observed that the Chairman was using this provision to directly entertain fresh matters merely on the ground that districts in western Uttar Pradesh are geographically closer to Delhi.
“This is something like acquiring territorial jurisdiction by merely exercising power under Section 25 of the Act, 1985, on a regular basis, which the legislature did not provide for,” the High Court remarked. The Court added that such an interpretation undermines the authority of benches like the one in Allahabad, which are vested with jurisdiction over specific regions — in this case, the entirety of western Uttar Pradesh, including Uttarakhand.
The Court directed the Centre and other respondents to file their replies within four weeks and scheduled the next hearing for July 17, 2025.
Expressing concern over the fallout of this practice, the Court noted, “Since the petitions have been entertained by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi, it has resulted in action of lawyers to abstain from work at Allahabad, as they complain that all the petitions are being entertained directly by Principal Bench at New Delhi.”
Justice Ajit Kumar emphasized that permitting the Principal Bench to entertain cases based solely on proximity would set a precedent that might render other regional benches functionally redundant. “This, in my considered view, must not have been the object in incorporating the provision like Section 25 of the Act, 1985,” the Court added.
