Sanjib Banerjee, J.

In the present proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners question the propriety of the decision of this High Court pursuant to which the powers exercised by the Sessions Judges in this State have been required to be exclusively exercised in respect of certain matters by the Additional Sessions Judges stationed at some sub-divisions. The petitioners are associations of practising advocates of Purba Medinipur.

It is necessary first to see the decision of the High Court as reflected in the relevant resolution of the Administrative Committee meeting of May 11, 2011:

“… Therefore, it is made clear that in all Districts of the State of West Bengal having Additional District & Sessions Judge in sub-divisions, filing of matrimonial suits and motor accident claims cases shall be allowed, for which the respective District Judges should make necessary provision. It is further made clear that the Resolution of the Administrative Committee (of) June 9, 1999, does not prohibit filing of such applications and suit; on the other hand, it clearly records that Additional District & Sessions Judges located at the sub-divisional headquarters shall have the requisite power of accepting the filing of all appeals, applications etc., which includes matrimonial suits and motor accident claims cases. The only prohibition is in respect of applications and suits which are required to be filed before the District Judge under any statute, to mean, where the statue specifically provides that such applications/suits will be decided by the District Judges as persona designata.”

The above resolution of the High Court was clarificatory in nature as the original decision of the High Court adopting the Administrative Committee resolution of June 9, 1999 had given rise to several queries.

On September 22, 2011 a notification was published in the official gazette by the State government reflecting the decision of the High Court adopting the Administrative Committee resolution of June 9, 1999. Such notification of September 22, 2011 provided, inter alia, that,

“… all courts of Additional District and Sessions Judges located at the Sub-divisional Head Quarters shall have the requisite power of accepting the filing of all appeals, applications, except those under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) as well as those applications/suits which are required to be filed before the District Judge under any statute and such resolution has been ratified by the High Court at Calcutta …”

The remainder of the notification as published in the official gazette is not relevant for the present purpose as no argument has been made in respect of matrimonial suits covered thereby.

On September 6, 2014, the District Judge, Purba Medinipur, addressed a letter to the office-bearers of the Bar associations in Tamluk that in terms of the High Court decision and the State government notification published in the official gazette on September 22, 2011, “the matters within the jurisdictions of Contai and Haldia Sub-divisions as covered by those letters of the Hon’ble Court and the Notification of the Govt. of West Bengal are not entertainable in the Sadar Sub-Division as at present the Courts of Additional Dist. & Sessions Judges are functioning in Contai and Haldia Sub-Divisions. …”

The legal issue that is raised by the petitioners is that the decision of the High Court and the notification of the State government issued pursuant thereto are in derogation of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, particularly the second proviso to Section 9(3) thereof as applicable in this State. The substance of the petitioners’ contention, shorn of the legal argument, is that it is impermissible to allow filing of criminal matters that ought to be before a Court of Session before any Judge other than the Sessions Judge. They suggest that they have no quarrel with Additional Sessions Judges being appointed to sh