JUDGMENT

R.D. Shukla, J. - This order shall also dispose of W.P. No. 290/97 as common question of law and facts arise in both the cases. Powers vested in the High Court under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India have been invoked in both the cases.

2. The case of petitioner - High Court Bar Association. Indore through one of its members Shri Ashok Kutumbale has made averments as follows:

Petitioner is Association and looks after the welfare of its members. The office of respondent No. 3 Collector Central Excise & Customs (Appeals) was established at Indore vide Notification No. 16/90 (N.T.) - Cus., dated 6-4-1990 (Annexure P/l).

3. The establishment of office of respondent No.3 at Indore was done as major part of appellate work arise from Indore and Pithampur (Industrial Area) and as also Indore being nearer to Dewas (other industrial area), large number of industries are established in different parts of city and its surrounding areas. It was a facility to the public industries that they save their substantial amount from visiting office distinctly placed.

It has further been submitted that the Union of India respondent No.1 has decided to shift the office to Bhopal which will deprive the poor litigants from exercising their rights of appeal shall not be in the public interest. It has also been submitted that Indore has been declared to be a dry port and therefore, it is likely to come up as international port.

4. The office of Collector (Appeals) has been created at Nagpur and. Therefore, the areas distinctly placed have already been taken away and only area which is nearer to Indore come within the jurisdiction of Collector (Appeals).

5. The decision of respondents to shift the office of respondent No.3 from Indore to Bhopal or any other place is against the public interest, arbitrary and unwarranted. In the facts and circumstances of the case this will result in hardship to the litigants and virtually deprivation of appeals. This will not only cause inconvenience but shall further cause increase in expenses of litigation. During the pendency of petition a further averment has been made by making an amendment that the seat of the Bench of High Court is located, at Indore, good number of senior and experienced lawyers are available here, if the office is shifted to Bhopal the litigants would be deprived of the services of good experienced lawyers.

6. Petitioner has no other efficacious remedy. As such approached the Court for exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction. The relief sought is that the record of the case concerning shifting of the office of respondent No.3 from Indore to Bhopal be called and the order with respect to shifting of office be quashed.

7. During the pendency of this petition and after return was filed by respondents Writ Petition No. 390/97 has been filed by way of public interest litigation on behalf of Pithampur Audhyogik Sangathan through its President, Shri Gautam Kothari. Almost same facts have been reiterated in this new petition. It has been averred that Indore is a commercial capital of Madhya Pradesh. Other offices like Labour Commissioner, Sales-tax Commissioner Provident Fund Commissioner are situated at Indore. A decision with respect to establishment of office of respondent No.3 was taken in the year 1990. There is no change of circumstances, as such the order shifting the same deserves to be quashed. Similar relief prohibiting shifting the office from Indore to Bhopal has been sought in this petition also.

8. Respondents have filed reply to M.P. No. 1054/91 and submitted that Office of Collector, Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) was established at Indore vide Notification referred above but no Collector was appointed till January, 1991. All appeals were heard and disposed of either at Delhi or at Bombay. Collector (Appeals) hears appeals against orders of Deputy Collector/Assistant Collector /Superintendents located throughout the jurisdiction of Indore (M.P. & Vidharbha Reg