JYUDGMENT - M. C. CHAGLA C. J.:

A very interesting question arises with regard to the proper construction of S. 59 of the States Reorganisation Act, and the question arises under the following circumstances. A petition was filed by one Surjuprasad Gumashta against the State of Madhya Pradesh alleging that he had been wrong fully dismissed, and this petition was presented be fore the Nagpur High Court and the petition was admitted by that High Court. Then came the States Reorganisation Act and this petition was transferred to the Bombay High Court under sub-s. (2) of S. 59. The petition now comes before the Bombay High Court for final disposal and the question that arises is whether this High Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ against the State of Madhya Pradesh. We are only dealing with this petition to the extent that the complaint made is that the dismissal is by the State of Madhya Pradesh and that the State of Madhya Pradesh is liable to reinstate the petitioner in its service.

(2) Now, the scheme of S. 59 is this that the Legis lature had to deal with the situation that arose by reason of the fact that the old Nagpur High Court ceased to function, that it became the High Court of the new State of Madhya Pradesh, and part of

old Madhya Pradesh integrated into the Bombay State. Therefore, the Bombay High Court had jurisdiction over part of the old Madhya Pradesh. Obviously, arrangements had to be made with regard to the orders made by the Nagpur High Court which ceased to function, and S. 59 deals with various contingencies which would arise under the new dispensation. Section 59(1) provides:

"Except as hereinafter provided, the High Court at Nagpur shall, as from that day, have no jurisdiction in respect of the territory transferred from the existing State of Madhya Pradesh to the new State of Bombay." And sub-s. (2) provides:

"Such proceedings pending in the High Court at Nagpur or the High Court of Hyderabad immediately before the appointed day as are certified by the Chief Justice of that High Court, having regard to the place of accrual of the cause of action and other circumstances, to be proceedings which ought to be heard and decided by the High Court for the new State of Bombay shall, as soon as may be after such certification, be transferred to the High Court of Bombay."

This was the certificate which was given by the Chief Justice. We are not concerned with sub-s. (3). Sub-section (4) provides:

"Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-ss. (1) and (2), but save as hereinafter provided, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh shall have, and the High Court of Bombay shall not have, jurisdiction to entertain, hear or dispose of appeals, applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, applications for review and other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day."

Therefore, with regard to these matters exclusive jurisdiction was conferred upon the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The proviso gives power to the Chief Justice of the High Court to transfer to the High Court of Bombay any of these proceedings. Then comes sub-s. (5) which calls for interpretation at our hands:

"Any order made before the appointed day by, any court referred to in sub-s. (2) or sub-s. (3) in any proceedings transferred to the High Court of Bombay by virtue of sub-s. (2) or sub-s. (3) shall for all purposes have effect, not only as an order of that court, but also as an order of the "High Court of Bombay; and any order made by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in any proceedings with respect to which that Court retains jurisdiction by virtue of sub-s. (4) shall for all purposes have effect, not only as an order of that High Court, but also as an order of the High Court of Bombay."

(3) Now, the order admitting the petition was passed by the High Court of Nagpur. The petition was transferred to the Bombay High Court by an order of the Chief Justice under sub-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document