Rajasthan High Court Imposes ₹1 Lakh Cost On Litigants For Forum Shopping And Bench Hunting
The High Court held that petitions filed before the Principal Seat at Jodhpur, despite arising from districts within the jurisdiction of the Jaipur Bench, amounted to forum shopping and bench hunting.
Justice Sameer Jain, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench
The Rajasthan High Court has imposed costs of ₹1 lakh each on multiple petitioners for filing writ petitions before the Principal Seat at Jodhpur despite the cause of action arising within the territorial jurisdiction of the Jaipur Bench. The High Court held that the filing of such petitions constituted forum shopping and bench hunting, which violate the territorial jurisdictional boundaries established under the notification issued by the Chief Justice of the High Court.
The Court was hearing a batch of writ petitions filed by various nursing and medical institutions seeking inclusion in the list of eligible colleges for B.Sc. Nursing counselling, affiliation with the Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, and acceptance of annual fees.
A Single Bench comprising Justice Sameer Jain, while hearing the matter, observed, “there is rampant bench hunting, forum shopping which is ignored by the Registry. Nevertheless, the concerned Court also on account of heavy workload, is not able to consider the said aspect at the initial stance, and resultantly, on vice-versa jurisdictions, petitions are entertained, and at belated stages objections on the grounds of maintainability are made.”
Advocate Ankur Mathur appeared for the petitioners, while Rajendra Prasad, Advocate General, appeared for the respondents.
Background
The petitioners, comprising several nursing and medical institutions, had approached the Court with identical prayers seeking directions to include their institutions in the list of eligible colleges for counselling in the B.Sc. Nursing course for the academic session 2025–26 onwards. They had also sought directions for acceptance of affiliation fees and recommendations from the concerned association for inclusion in the counselling process.
The lead petition, filed by an institution located in Sikar, contained a handwritten note acknowledging that the matter pertained to the Jodhpur jurisdiction. However, upon scrutiny, the Court found that the said endorsement had been made without any supporting pleadings showing that any part of the cause of action arose within Jodhpur’s jurisdiction.
The Bench noted that despite the clear demarcation of territorial jurisdiction between the Jaipur Bench and the Principal Seat, the Registry failed to raise objections when petitions from Jaipur’s jurisdictional districts were filed at Jodhpur. The Registrar (Judicial) was also summoned but was unable to offer any justifiable explanation for the oversight.
Court’s Observations
The Jodhpur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court undertook a detailed examination of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, holding that petitions filed outside the proper jurisdiction without disclosure of such cause of action amount to misuse of the writ jurisdiction.
The Bench, while taking note that petitions originating from districts under the Jaipur Bench were deliberately filed at Jodhpur to obtain favourable orders, observed that “the instant batch of petitions pertains to issues from various districts like Bharatpur, Sikar, Jaipur etc. which fall under the territorial jurisdiction of Jaipur Bench, but have been filed before the Principal Seat at Jodhpur, wherein no specific pleadings qua cause of action pertaining to Jodhpur jurisdiction are stated.”
The Bench referred to multiple precedents, including Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association v. Union of India, Union of India v. Cipla Ltd., Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, and the coordinate Bench decision in Dhanwantri Institute of Medical Science v. State of Rajasthan, where a cost of ₹10 lakh had been imposed for similar conduct.
Quoting from Dhanwantri Institute of Medical Science, the Court recalled that even educational institutions had been previously cautioned for filing successive petitions before different Benches after withdrawing earlier ones, which was described as a “very sorry state of affairs” and “highly condemnable.”
Justice Jain further reproduced the notification issued by the then Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court, explicitly dividing the territorial jurisdiction between the Principal Seat at Jodhpur and the Jaipur Bench, reiterating that cases from districts such as Ajmer, Alwar, Bharatpur, Jaipur, Sikar, and Tonk fall exclusively within Jaipur’s jurisdiction.
The Advocate General conceded before the Court that the practice of filing petitions in a Bench outside territorial jurisdiction cannot be termed “Bench convenience” but amounts to “Bench hunting.”
Conclusion
The High Court concluded that the petitions were filed in clear contravention of territorial jurisdiction and amounted to forum shopping. Holding such conduct as a disreputable practice and an abuse of the process of law, the Court imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh on each petitioner whose institutions were located within the territorial limits of the Jaipur Bench but who had filed petitions at Jodhpur.
The Court further directed that the issue of forum shopping and bench hunting be referred to the Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court for administrative consideration and issuance of appropriate directions.
Additionally, the Court appointed the Advocate General as amicus curiae to assist in the matter and directed both the Registrars (Judicial) at Jodhpur and Jaipur to furnish statistics on such petitions by filing affidavits.
Cause Title: Annapurna Medical Training (College of Nursing) v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Appearances:
Petitioners: Advocates Ankur Mathur, Shreyansh Mardia, Divya Bafana, and Himanshu Choudhary.
Respondents: Rajendra Prasad, Advocate General; Advocate Sher Singh Rathore for N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG; Advocates Mahendra Vishnoi, Vinay Kothari, Akshiti Singhvi, Sangram Singh.
