JUDGMENT

RANGANATH MISRA, J.:— This appeal by certificate from the Calcutta High Court assails the affirming judgment of the Division Bench upholding the dismissal of a writ petition challenging the vires of the Calcutta City Civil Court Act (21 of 1953) and its later amendment on the ground of want of legislative competence of the State Legislature. The City Civil Court Act (Act for short), empowered the State Government to establish a Civil Court to be called the City Civil Court and under S. 5 thereof the local limits and the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court was to be the city of Calcutta. Sub-sec. (2) of S. 3 provided :

"Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4), the City Civil Court shall have jurisdiction and the High Court shall not have jurisdiction to try suits and proceedings of a civil nature not exceeding Rs. 10,000/- in value."

The value of Rs. 10,000/- was later enhanced to Rs. 50,000/- and again to Rs. 1 lakh. The appellant moved the Calcutta High Court for a declaration that the Act was ultra vires the State Legislature. It was contended that Parliament alone had the legislative competence to make law affecting the jurisdiction of the High Court. The learned single Judge as also the Division Bench negatived the appellants plea and have held that the Act was intra vires the Constitution.

2. It is appropriate to refer to the relevant legislative entries in the three lists - Union, State and Concurrent - as they stood in 1953 when the Act was enacted. In the Union List Entries 77, 78 and 95 are relevant. They provide :

"77. Constitution, organisation, jurisdiction and powers of the SC (including contempt of such Court), and the fees taken therein; persons entitled to practise before the SC.

78. Constitution and organisation (including vacations) of the High Courts except provisions as to officers and servants of High Court; persons entitled to practice before the High Court.

95. Jurisdiction and powers of all Courts, except the SC, with respect to any of the matters in this list; admiralty jurisdiction."

Entry 3, List II at the relevant time provided :

"3. Administration of justice, constitution and organisation of all Courts except the SC and the High Courts; Officers and Servants of the High Court; procedure in rent and revenue courts; fees taken in all Courts except the SC."

Entry 65, List II provides :

"65. Jurisdiction and powers of all Courts, except the SC, with respect to any of the matters in this list."

Entry 46, List III provides :

"46. Jurisdiction and power of all Courts, except the SC, with respect to any of the matters in this list."

3. A Constitution Bench of this Court in State of Bombay v. Narothamdas Jethabhai, 1951 SCR 51, examined the validity of the Bombay City Civil Court Act of 1948. The provisions of that Act and the impugned Act are almost similar. The challenge to the vires of the Bombay Act had to be examined keeping the provisions of Government of India Act, 1935, in view inasmuch as that was a pre-Constitution legislation. Each of the learned Judges wrote a separate judgment but all of them were agreed that the Bombay Act was a law with respect to a matter enumerated in List II and was not ultra vires. Entry 53 of List I was to the following effect :

"53. Jurisdiction and powers of all Courts, except the Federal Court, with respect to any of the matters in this list ............"

Entries 1 and 2 of List II were as under :

"1. ........The administration of justice, constitution and organisation of all Courts, except the Federal Court, and fees taken therein; ......

2. Jurisdiction and powers of all Courts, except the Federal Court, with respect to any of the matters in this list; procedure in Rent and Revenue Courts."

Entry 15 of List III was to the following effect :

"15. Jurisdiction and powers of all Courts, except the Federal Court, with respect to any of the matters in this List."

The two relevant entries in List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution authorised law making on