JUDGMENT

Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. —I have had the privilege of perusing the considered judgment of my esteemed brother Justice Dalveer Bhandari. However, in view of the fact that the present appeal involves several important and wide-ranging questions of law, I wish to record my own reasons for the same, while, in essence, concurring with the conclusions arrived at by my learned brother. I may, however, add that since in the main judgment detailed facts have been delineated, I refrain myself from repeating the same, but refer only to those basic facts as would help in appreciating the issues discussed hereinafter.

2. Main challenge in this appeal as it appears from the arguments advanced is to the legality and the validity of the three notifications one of which was issued by the Patna High Court on 20.05.2006 and the other two notifications dated 07.06.2006 were issued by the Government of Bihar.

3. The appellant, who was a Member of Parliament from Siwan Lok Sabha Constituency, being aggrieved by the issuance of the aforesaid notifications filed a writ petition in the High Court of Patna wherein he challenged the legality and validity of the aforesaid three notifications.

4. The appellant was arrested in connection with the Siwan P.S. Case No. 8 of 2001 and was remanded to judicial custody on 13.8.2003 and he continued to remain in custody till 18.02.2005 till he was granted bail by the Patna High Court on 10.02.2005. A number of other cases came to be lodged against him and he was re-arrested and detained in Beur Jail, Patna under the provisions of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981. Though the aforesaid order of detention was set aside, still the appellant continued to remain in custody in connection with other cases that had been lodged against the appellant.

5. The notification dated 20.05.2006 notified the decision of the Patna High Court that the premises of the District Jail, Siwan would be the place of sitting of the Court of Sessions for the Sessions Division of Siwan for expeditious trial of sessions cases pending against the appellant namely Md. Shahabuddin. By issuing the other two notifications dated 07.06.2006, the Government of Bihar directed that the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge of Siwan, Sessions Division would hold its sitting inside the jail premises of District Jail, Siwan for trying the cases relating to the appellant herein. By issuing the third notification dated 07.06.2006, the Government of Bihar in exercise of power conferred under Section 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the CrPC’) and in consultation with the Patna High Court ordered the establishment of a Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class inside the District Jail, Siwan for holding its sitting for the trial of cases pending against the appellant. On issuance of the aforesaid notifications dated 07.06.2006, the venue for holding the trial of the cases pending against the appellant was shifted to the premises of the District Jail, Siwan.

6. The appellant had earlier challenged and assailed the legality and validity of the aforesaid notifications in the High Court of Patna by filing a Writ Petition. It was submitted on behalf of the present appellant before the High Court that the provisions of Section 9(6) of the CrPC do not empower the High Court to transfer the pending cases although such power might or could be exercised with regard to the newly instituted cases. Itwas also submitted that since the State Government has no power and jurisdiction to exercise powers under Section 9(6), therefore, the notification issued by the State Government exercising powers under Section 9(6) by way of establishing a Sessions Court in District Jail, Siwan is without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It was next submitted that the rule of ‘audi alteram partem’ is applicable to transfer of any case to any court to which provisions of Section 407 of CrPC would apply. It w