The jurisdiction of the Original and Appellate Sides of the Bombay High Court to entertain petitions challenging the validity of Rules 35 and 623 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1957, depends on whether the matter in dispute arises substantially within the limits of Greater Bombay.

DESHPANDE, J. :- The petitioner, an advocate of this Court, seeks to challenge the validity of Rules 35 and 623 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1957, in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India on the around of the said Rules being violative of Articles 14 and 19 thereof as also the provisions of the Advocates Act. 1961. A writ directing Union Government to enforce Section 30 of the said Act also is sought. This petition was lodged and received at the Appellate Side. Notice before admission was directed to be issued by Vaidya and Dudhia JJ. to the respondents and certain other interested institutions, in view of the importance of the points raised, when the matter was placed for admission on 9th July 1973. The petition has been placed before us for admission, on the appearance of the respondents, etc., as per order of the learned Chief Justice. Regular Bench for constitutional matters could not hear it earlier due to an objection raised by Mr. Desai that one of the learned Judges was a member of the delegation opposing such Rules. The learned Advocate General and Mr. Ashok Desai raised a preliminary objection to the competency of this Bench to entertain the petition on the Appellate Side. We have heard them and Mr. Kalsekar, learned Advocate for the petitioner, as also Mr. Paranjape, Mr. Singhavi, Mr. D. R. Dhanuka, Mr. M. A. Rane, Mr. H. K. Shah and Mr. Mahendra Gill, learned Advocates appearing for different institutions and the learned Government Pleader, all of whom supported the petitioner.

2. This High Court, since its establishment in 1862 under the Letters Patent, has been exercising original as well as appellate jurisdiction and its functioning is regulated by 'the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1957' and 'Rules of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Appellate Side, 1960' (hereinafter referred to respectively as 'O. S. Rules' and 'A. S. Rules'). Rules also provide for disposal of petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is exclusively vested in a Bench on the Appellate Side and jurisdiction of either of the two wings of this Court under Article 226, however, depends upon whether "the matter in dispute" arises substantially in Greater Bombay or beyond it, the same being exercisable by the original Side in the former case and by the Appellate Side in the latter case. This is not made dependant on the matter being in fact of an original or appellate nature. The contention of the learned Advocate General and Mr. Desai is that the matter in dispute, on averments in the petition, must be said to have arisen, at any rate, substantially within the limits of Greater Bombay and the petitioner cannot be permitted to avoid the impact of these Rules and choose his own forum by merely quoting Article 227 of the title and prayer clause of the petition, when it is not attracted or by merely making a pretence of the dispute having arisen beyond Greater Bombay by referring to non-existing facts to attract the Appellate Side jurisdiction under Article 226.

3. This takes us to the close scrutiny of the facts averred. One Joglekar of Mahad in Kolaba District, filed a Company Petition through the petitioner on the Original Side of this Court. Rule 35 disables any Advocate from appearing in any such matter unless instructed by an Attorney or unless he happens to be a Supreme Court Advocate. The Assistant Master virtually declined to receive this petition expressing doubt about the petitioner's competency to so file it without complying with the Rules. It is not disputed that Chamber Judge's authority to receive or refuse to receive such documents under Rule 89 is delegated to the Assistant Master under Rule 96, sub-rules (1) and (10) of the O. S. Rules read with clause (b) of Company (Court) Rules, subject to his (the Chamber Judge on the Original Side) over-all supervision. Th