Point of Law: Article 39A of Constitution of India provides for equal justice and free legal aid.

ORDER :

B. VEERAPPA, J.

The petitioner practicing Advocate has filed the present Public Interest Litigation seeking writ of certiorari to struck down the establishment of Circuit Benches and converting them into Permanent Bench by the order dated 19.10.2004 vide Annexures-E and F dated 4.6.2008 at Dharwad and Gulbarga and the Presidential Order dated 8.8.2013 vide Annexure-M as unconstitutional, contrary to law and opposed to public interest; and a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.5 -Auditor and Comptroller General of India to conduct performance of audit including financial audit with regard to investment, expenditure and functional viability of these Benches at Dharwad and Gulbarga and it's sustenance in public interest.

I -FACTS OF THE CASE

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a practicing advocate of High Court of Karnataka at Principal Bench, Dharwad and Gulbarga Benches and he is a public spirited citizen, who has taken up several causes of the citizen as also of advocates, in the matter of maintenance of the Rule of law and efficacy of justice delivery system.

3. The petition raises several questions of law interalia as to the relative scope and scope of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1961') and establishment of Permanent Bench of the High Court of Karnataka under the provisions of Section 51(2) by converting the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Benches at Dharwad and Gulbarga and of the State Re-organisation Act, 1956(for short, hereinafter referred to as 'S.R. Act, 1956) issued under Section 51(3) of the S.R. Act, 1956 in 2004/2008. It is further contended that the establishment of the said Benches, first, as Circuit Benches and later converting them as Permanent Benches is contrary to law and severely affects the public interest as it is contrary to the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the Federation of Bar Association -vs-Union of India reported in (2000)6 SCC Page 715 apart from the recommendation of Hon'ble Justice Jaswant Singh's Commission Report, since factually the number of cases, filed, disposed of and the expenditure incurred in maintenance of these establishments are not conducive to the public interest, as it affects the functional integrity and unity of the institution of the Hon'ble High Court. The respondents are the respective authorities representing His Excellency, the Hon'ble President of India, the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Karnataka and His Excellency, the Governor of Karnataka thus answering the description of the term within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and the 5th respondent is a Constitutional authority responsible for undertaking performance of audit, including financial audit of Public Institutions/Authorities.

4. The petitioner further stated that the Mysore High Court Act, 1884 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1884') was enacted to establish and constitute the High Court of Mysore and to provide for administration of Justice by the High Court of Mysore. Section 3 of Act, 1984 defines the term 'High Court' which means the Chief Justice of the High Court and refers to the Chief Court or to the High Court in any Regulation, Act or other Laws for the time being in force and shall be deemed to have been made to the High Court of Mysore. The provisions of Section 17 of Act, 1884 prescribes that the High Court shall hold its sittings at such place as the State Government may, from time to time, appoint any other place by way of Circuit, interalia. Section 19 of Act, 1884 permits the High Court to make Rules for exercise of powers of one or more of its judges under the said Act or any other Enactment. The Rules made there under were required to receive sanction from the State Government under Section 21 of the Act. Section 14 of the Act 1961 has continued and retained the operati