Holding

The writ petition pending before the Madras High Court is to be transferred to the Delhi High Court as the issues are conceptually identical.

Summary

Indian Airlines Limited filed a transfer petition under Article 139-A(2) of the Constitution seeking to move a writ petition pending in the Madras High Court to the Delhi High Court, arguing that several other writ petitions involving identical issues were already pending there. The respondent argued that the transfer was sought to avoid conflicting decisions and that the Madras petition raised additional issues. The Supreme Court examined the prayers in both sets of petitions and found them conceptually identical, concluding that any relevance of the earlier Regional Provident Fund Commissioner case could be addressed by the Delhi High Court when hearing all the petitions together. Consequently, the Court held that the transfer was appropriate to prevent duplication and potential conflict. The transfer petition was therefore allowed, directing the case to be heard by the Delhi High Court alongside the other pending writ petitions.

Issues considered

Whether a writ petition pending in one High Court should be transferred to another High Court on the ground of identical issues pending there.
Whether the presence of additional issues in the original petition precludes transfer.
Whether the risk of conflicting judgments warrants transfer under Article 139-A(2).

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 139-A(2)

Subjects

Article 139-Atransfer of jurisdictionidentical issueswrit petitionHigh Courtconflicting judgmentsseniority listIndian Airlines

Judgment

....
A INDIAN AIRLINES LIMITED
v.
CAPT. RAMAN DOULAGAR

NOVEMBER 9, 2006

B [ARIJIT PASA YAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 139-A(2):

Transfer Petition-Transferring from Madr(ls High Court to Delhi High
C Court on the ground of identical issues-Held: Petition pending in Delhi
High Court involving conceptually identical issues-Hence, transfer of writ
petition from Madras High Court to Delhi High Court allowed-Directions
issued

D Petitioner-Indian Airlines Limited filed a Transfer Petition seeking
transfer of a Writ Petition pending before the Madras High Court to the Delhi
High Court on the ground that several other writ petition~ involving identical
issues are pending before the Delhi High Court.

Respondent contended that the prayer for transfer of the petition has
E been made mainly on the ground that in the event there are conflicting
decisions, it would not be in the interest of the parties; that there is no scope
for conflicting views being expressed by the two High Courts, as the
controversy involved is settled by the decision of this Court in Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner, ·Mangalore v. Central Arecanut & Coca
Marketing and Processing Coop. Ltd, Mangalore; and that in the writ
F petition, pending before the Madras High Court, certain additional issues are
also involved.

Allowing the petition, the Court

HELD: It is clear that the writ petitions pending before the Madras High
G Court and the Delhi High Court are conceptually identical. Whether the
decision in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner's case has any relevance
can be considered by the High Court where all the petitions could be taken
up. Therefore, it is a fit case where the Writ Petition pending before the
Madras High Court is to be transferred to the Delhi High Court to be taken

H 786
- INDIAN AIRLINES LTD. v. CAPT. RAMAN DOULAGAR [PASA YAT, .I.] 787

up along with other pending Writ Petitions. (788-H; 789-A-Dl A
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Mangalore v. Central Arecanut
& Coca Marketing and Processing coop. Ltd., Mangalore, [2006) 2 SCC
381, referred to.

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Transfer Petition (Civil) No.214 of B
2006.

Petition under Article 139-A (2) of the Constitution of India for transfer
of the W.P. No. 3992 of2006 titled Capt. Raman Doug/agar v. Indian Airlines
Limited Pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras to
the Hon'ble Delhi High Court . C
L. Nageswara Rao, Vinay K. Shailendra, Ajay Dahiya Shivendra Dwivedi
and R.S. Suri for the Petitioner.

H.P. Sharma and K.S. Rana for the Respondent.
D
The Judgment of the Court was delivred by:

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. This petition for transfer has been filed under
Article 139-A (2) of the Constitution oflndia, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution').
It has been filed by the Indian Airlines Limited seeking transfer of Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 3992 of 2006 titled "Captain Raman Doulagar v. Indian E
Airlines Limited" pending before the Madras High Court to the Delhi High
Court. Prayer has been made primarily on the ground that several other writ
petitions involving identical issues are pending before the Delhi High Court.

Learned counsel for the respondent on the other submitted that the F
prayer has been made mainly on the ground that in the event there are
conflicting decisions, it would not be in the interest of the parties. It is
submitted that there is no scope for conflicting views being expressed by the
two High Courts, as the controversy involved is settled by a decision of this
Court in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Mangalore v. Central
Arecanut & Coca Marketing and Processing Coop. ltd., Mangalore [2006] G
2 SCC 38 L A reference is made to Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the judgment. It
is also submitted that in the writ petition, pending before the Madras High
Court, certain additional issues are also involved.

The prayers made in the Writ Petitions before the Madras High Court
and the Delhi High Court needs to be examined. In the Madras High Court H
788 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A the prayers inter-alia are as follows:

"For all the aforesaid reasons, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or Mandamus Qr any other
appropriate Writ, Order or Direction calling for the records of the
respondent relating to the impugned Seniority List circulated vide
B letter no. HPDOI/0-2601 dated 14.7.2004 and quash the same and
consequently direct the respondent to fix the seniority of the petitioner
herein above 50th, 5th and 52nd batches of Trainee-Pilots and pass
such further or other orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

c It is, therefore, further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to direct the respondent to send the petitioner herein forthwith
for Pilot-in-Command (P.l.C.) Training in consonance with the policy
laid down for the petitioners-batch (STP-1), pending disposal of the
above Writ Petition, and pass such further or other orders as may be
deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and
D
thus render justice."

Before the Delhi High Court the basic prayers are as follows:

"a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other
writ of like nature quashing the impugned Draft Seniority List of First
E officers, dated 14 July, 2004 and directing the respondent to treat STP-
01 batch, including the petitioner, separate and independent from
their counterparts of the Trainee Pilot lineage for all purposes including
promotion to the rank of Commander on the basis of one eligibility.

A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus quashing the
F impugned Draft Seniority List of First Officers, dated 14 July, 2004 and
directing the respondents to place his batch, including the petitioner,
above all those of Trainee Pilots lineage, including 50th, 51 st and
52nd batches of Trainee Pilots that completed their training and
absorbed as a batch in the regular cadre of Pilots of Indian Airlines
G after the publication of their notification in press on 13th August,
2001 adopting the Scheme of Sr. Trainee Pilots against which the
petitioner was enrolled as a Sr. Trainee Pilot and to give consequential
benefits to the petitioner."

On a perusal of the primary stands as culled out from the prayers made
H it is clear that they are conceptually identical. Whether the decision in Regional
INDIAN AIRLINES LTD, v. CAPT. RAMAN DO ULA GAR [PASAYAT, J.] 789
....
Provident Fund Commissioner's case (supra) has any relevance can be A
considered by the High Court where all the petitions can be taken up. Therefore,
we consider it to be a fit case where the Writ Petition No.3992 of2006 pending
before the Madras High Court is to be transferred to the Delhi High Court
to be taken up along with Writ Petition (Civil) Nos.311 of 2005, 957 of 2005
and 958 of2005.
B
The transfer petition is' accordingly allowed.

S.K.S. Appeal allowed.