'Forum convenience' is not fundamental right; only Chief Justice can transfer case from one Bench to another: Karnataka High Court

Unlike access to justice, forum convenience cannot be claimed as a fundamental right and the right to choose jurisdiction of the court is subject to the powers of the Chief Justice, the Karnataka High Court held last week. .A Full Bench of Justices Satish Chandra Sharma, R Devdas and S Sunil Dutt Yadav held that only the Chief Justice of a particular High Court can issue a roster, transfer a case from one judge to another judge and pass an order in respect of transfer of a case from one Bench to another Bench and this power cannot be exercised by a puisne judge.."It is a settled proposition of law that "forum convenience" is not a fundamental right similar to 'access to justice'. 'Access to Justice' is recognized as a fundamental right. However, 'forum convenience' cannot be claimed as fundamental right and the right to choose jurisdiction of the court is again subject to the powers of the Chief Justice as discussed above. Forum convenience cannot become 'forum shopping," the Court said. Every judge of the High Court does not have the power, whether he is sitting singly or whether it is a Division Bench or whether it is a Full Bench, to transfer a case from one Bench to another Bench or from main Seat to Benches or vice versa, the Court emphasised.."(Only) the Chief Justice, who can allocate the work to a particular judge, issue a roster, transfer a case from one judge to another judge, pass an order in respect of transfer of a case from one Bench to another Bench and by no stretch of imagination a puisne judge can transfer a case from one Bench to another Bench," the judgment stated..The order was passed in a case in which a question arose on whether the Registrar General or pusine judge has power to transfer case from principal bench at Bengaluru to Dharwad Bench of the High Court. .The petition before the High Court was filed by Karnataka Power Corporation Limited, challenging an order dated October 27, 2016 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Sirsi, in execution proceedings initiated for land acquisition. .The respondent in the matter, Gopalkrishna submitted an application to the Registrar General of the High Court in 2018 stating that he is 69 years old and the dispute relates to land acquisition, based on a property which was acquired in 1993. It was stated by him that the Court at Sirsi comes within the territorial jurisdiction of Dharwad Bench of the Karnataka High Court and the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India could not have been filed in the principal seat at Bengaluru..The single judge referred to the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of the High Court in the case of Abdul Wajid vs. State of Karnataka and the respondent's contention is that the ratio laid down in the above case is prima facie, per incuriam. In view of the same, the matter has been referred to the Full Bench..The Full Bench, firstly went through the ratio in the case of Abdul Wajid. In that case, it was held that neither the Chief Justice nor the Full Bench of the High Court has the jurisdiction to decide whether any particular Bench in the High Court of Karnataka has the jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition or not. As per that judgement, the issue has to be decided in an individual case by the judge or the judges hearing the matter. Therefore, the High Court Registry cannot raise an objection in respect of the maintainability of a case on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, the Court noted. .The Bench then proceeded to refer the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand in which it was held that the Chief Justice is the master of the roster. The Court also referred to Rule 6 of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959. "The aforesaid rule makes it very clear that Constitution of Benches and allotment of judicial work/distribution of judicial work has to be done only and only by Hon'ble The Chief Justice. The same view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand.".As regards the present petition, the Court opined that it should have been filed at Dharwad Bench and not the Principal seat at Bengaluru. However, now that the issue was with respect to transfer of the plea from one Bench to another, only the Chief Justice can pass orders to that effect, the Court made it clear. "However, now as the issue is in respect of transfer of the case from Principal Seat to Dharwad Bench, it is only and only Hon'ble The Chief Justice, who can pass an order of transfer from Principal Seat to Dharwad Bench.".Adding on to this, the Court said, forum convenience is a double-edged sword, which applies to both the petitioner/appellant and respondent. "If a litigant from Kalaburagi approaches the Principal Seat at Bengaluru, he drags even the private respondents to the Principal Seat, their inconvenience notwithstanding. There may be cases where the same judgment or order is challenged by both the parties before the High Court. In such an eventuality, if the judgment of this High Court in Abdul Wajid's case (supra) is accepted, one party can file an appeal in Kalaburagi Bench and the other at the Principal Seat. Because of this, in the words of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, 'some sort of judicial anarchy shall come into play'," the judgment said. .It then said that the judgement in the case of Abdul Wajid deserves to be clarified. "Every judge of the High Court, keeping in view the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand (supra), does not enjoy the power to transfer cases from one Bench to another Bench or from Principal Seat to Benches and vice versa.".With these observations, the Court disposed of the plea. .[Read Judgment]