Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KULDIP SINGH AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.
U.P. Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad, Lucknow, Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others, Respondents.
I.A. No.4 of 1995 in Spl.Leave Petn. (Civil) No. 19963, of 1994
Decided on 2-7-1995.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Addl. Advocate General (State of U.P.), Mr. D. D. Thakur, Mr. Umesh Chandra and Mr. Satish Chandra, Sr.Advocates, Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Mr. R. Ayyam Perumal, Mr. M. Iqbal Butt, Mr. Manoj Pillai, Mr. Sandeep Dixit, Mr. C.P. Pal, M/s. L.O. Naithani, T.D. Singh, Prashant Kumar, Amander Nath Singh and Mr. V.D. Khanna, Advocates (Mr. Ashok K. Srivastava) Advocate for (State of U.P.) with them for appearing parties.
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Section 141 - Jurisdiction and power - Jurisprudence governing Court-functioning in this country makes judgment delivered by Judge or Bench comprising of more than one Judges Judgment of Court and not person holding judicial office - Judgment holds good till it is set aside or its correctness is doubted by higher Court - Once correctness judgment is doubted by higher Court judgment no longer remains law of land and is treated as non - Judicial propriety demands that Judge Judges whose judgment has been rendered non by higher Court should not bring their personal ego into matter and should bow before law laid down by higher Court - Circumstances highlighted in this application give impression that Registry of High Court is in state of helplessness and there is functional crisis on issue of interpretation Clause High Court Amalgamation Order - Registry is being asked to comply with General Directions given by Bench in Mills case despite fact that said case has been overruled by Full Bench of same Court - Senior advocate appearing for appellant has contended that even on reasoning of Division Bench judgment itself conclusions reached by Bench are erroneous - Court see force in contention - Division Bench of High Court relying upon judgment of Rajasthan High Court in Ram - Union of India AIR Rajasthan judgment delivered Judge then was came to conclusion that words arising in context mean pertaining to districts of" or "arising from." It is not disputed that in present case order notification and advertisement were issued by State Government at Luc know - Without there being an order notification by Government there could be no cause of action at all - Petitioner got aggrieved only from order notification which arose from Luc know - Grievance of petitioner at Luck now which is within Oudh area and as such on plain reading of relevant provisions of Clause Amalgamation Order Bench at Luck now had jurisdiction to deal with matter – Court have been informed that Review Petition against impugned judgment is also pending before High Court - Apart from that an application to withdraw Writ Petition also pending before High Court - Court are informed that withdrawal application was initially allowed by Bench at Luc know but later on arguments were heard in said application once against at Allahabad by Bench consisting - Judgment is reserved - Court have further been informed that Writ Petition - Registrar High Court - Arising out of same proceedings - Also pending before High Court - Since court are setting aside impugned judgment delivered Mills case in total these proceedings which are pending before High Court would be rendered in fructuous - Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT
KULDIP SINGH, J. :—This interlocutory application has been filed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad through its Registrar in the Special Leave Petition arising from the judgment and order dated September 23, 1994 of High Court of Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) in U.P. Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad v. State of U.P. and others (Writ Petition No. 35951 of 1994.). The special leave petition was disposed of by this Court on December 2, 1994 with the following order.
"In view of the Full Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court this special leave petition has become infructuous. The special leave petition is disposed of as such."
2. The judgement in Chini Mills case is by the Bench consisting of B.M. Lall and S.R. Singh, JJ. The question of law decided by the Bench in Chini Mills case was later on reconsidered by a Full Bench of the High Court which came to the conclusion that the judgment of the Division Bench in Chini Mills case was contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Nasiruddin v. STA Tribunal, AIR 1976 SC 331, and as such was not correctly decided. It was in this background - Chini Mills case having been overruled by the Full Bench of the same Court - that this Court did not go into the merits of the special leave petition and disposed of the same as having become infructuous.
3. The jurisprudence governing Court-functioning in this country makes a judgment, delivered by a Judge or a Bench comprising of more than one Judges, the Judgment of the Court and not of the person holding the judicial office. The judgment holds good till it is set aside or its correctness is doubted by the higher Court. Once the correctness of a judgment is doubted by the higher Court the judgment no longer remains the law of the land and is treated as non est. Judicial propriety demands that the Judge/Judges whose judgment has been rendered non est by the higher Court should not bring their personal ego into the matter and should bow before the law laid down by the higher Court. The facts and circumstances highlighted in this application give the impression that the Registry of the High Court is in a state of helplessness and there is a functional-crisis on the issue of interpretation of Clause 14 of the High Court (Amalgamation) Order, 1948. The Registry is being asked to comply with the "General Directions" given by the Bench in Chini Mills case despite the fact that the said case has been overruled by the Full Bench of the same Court. We, therefore, grant permission to the High Court to file special leave petition in this Court against the judgment of the Division Bench in Chini Mills case. We treat this interlocutory applications as special leave petition and we grant special leave in the matter.
4. The question before the Lucknow Bench of the High Court was whether the Bench at Lucknow or the High Court at Allahabad had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; The answer to the said question further depended on the interpretation of the expression "in respect of cases arising in such areas in Oudh" occurring in first proviso to Article 14 of the High Court (Amalgamation) Order 1948 (hereinafter called Amalgamation Order).
5. The High Court came to the conclusion that in the facts of the Chini Mills case the Lucknow Bench had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. According to the Division Bench of the High Court the writ petition could only be filed in the High Court at Allahabad.
6. Historically, the territories with 12 districts of Lucknow, Faizabad, Sultanpur, Rai Bareli, Pratap Garh, Barabanki, Gonda, Baharaich, Sitapur, Kheri, Hardoi and Unnao were brought under the then British Crown within the jurisdiction of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Oudh at Lucknow. This was done under the Government Order dated February 4, 1856 read with the Oudh Civil Courts Act, 1879. In 1925 Oudh Courts Act was passed by the Uttar Pradesh Legislature
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
