Alapan Bandyopadhyay has filed a review petition challenging the decision of the chairperson of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) to transfer his case to Delhi bench from Kolkata bench of CAT.
The former West Bengal Chief Secretary Alapan Bandyopadhyay filed a review petition in Delhi high court challenging the decision of the chairperson of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) to transfer Bandyopadhyay’s case from the Kolkata bench of CAT to the Delhi bench.
The Central government has opposed the review petition and in response has told the Delhi High Court that Bandyopadhyay is indulging in bench hopping by filing the review petition immediately after the retirement of former Chief Justice DN Patel.
“It is humbly submitted that from the conduct of the Petitioner, it is palpably clear and apparent that it is indulging in Bench hopping in the garb of a review petition and the present review petition which has been filed immediately after the retirement of the Hon ‘ble Chief Justice who has authored the judgment under review,” the government has said in its response.
Then Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh on March 7, 2022, dismissed the plea filed by Bandyopadhyay challenging Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Chairman’s decision to transfer his case from Kolkata Bench to Delhi was dismissed by a bench of
A review was then filed by him in which one of the grounds was the denial of Passover despite repeated requests from the junior counsel appearing for Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi.
The bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Jyoti Singh issued notice on the review petition on April 22 by
The Court while issuing notice had noted that the request for Passover was denied by the then Chief Justice in the matter
Justice Shakdher had remarked that if it was the stand of the government that it is fair for the court to not allow Passover of matters, then the bench will record the same in its order and no Passover will be granted on request of the junior counsel appearing for the Centre also. Besides the Centre opposed the review,
Though the right to be heard by the court is a valid and valuable right, the right of being heard only through a senior counsel is not, stated central government.
Further, the center added that there is neither a rule providing mandatory Passover on the first call nor is it a “regular practice” of the Delhi High Court to grant such a Passover.
“It is submitted that right of being heard is a valid and valuable right. Right of being heard only by Senior Advocate is neither a vested right nor treated to be a right, violation of which, would entitle a litigant to seek review of the order,” .read the response
It further said that if this ground is accepted to be a ground for review, all courts would be flooded with applications for re-hearing only on the ground that the litigant wanted to be represented by a Senior Advocate.
“It is humbly submitted that the present Review Petition is not maintainable as no lawful grounds exist for review of the said Judgment and the present Petition is nothing but an appeal in disguise to get the matter re-heard on merits and the same is impermissible in law,”.Center said
The Central government has also said that there is no error apparent on the face of the record and the case cannot be re-heard because the petition feels a Senior Counsel could have argued it more forcefully.
Counsel for Bandyopadhyay
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi along with advocates Kunal Vajani, Debanjan Mandal, Kunal Mimani, Mahima Cholera, Kartikey Bhatt and Gokula Krishnan.
AGS for the Central government.
ASG Vikramjit Banerjee