The Trivandrum Bench, sitting under S.51 (3) of the States Reorganisation Act, does not have the power to receive cases and does not constitute the High Court for the State sitting at that place.

1. Up to and inclusive of the 31st October, 1956, judges of the High Court of Travancore-Cochin were sitting at Trivandrum and exercising in respect of cases arising in the district of Trivandrum the jurisdiction and powers of a single judge or a Division Bench of two judges as determined by the Chief Justice. This was under the proviso added to S.6 of the Travancore-Cochin High Court Act V of 1125 by Central Act 38 of 1953. The section with the proviso reads as follows:

Table:#1

A registry was opened at Trivandrum, in charge of a Joint Registrar, and thereafter all cases arising in the district of Trivandrum were being instituted there.

2. On the 1st of November, 1956, the High Court of Travancore-Cochin stood abolished by reason of S.50 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, and with it went what might be called its Trivandrum Bench. Under S.51 (1) of the Act, Ernakulam was notified by the President as the principal seat of the new High Court of Kerala which came into being on that date, and the new High Court was functioning exclusively at Ernakulam until the Chief Justice acting under S.51 (3) of the Act issued the following notification (marked as Ext. P-2 in this case):

"In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section 3 of S.51 of the States Reorganisation Act of 1956 (Central Act 37 of 1956) the Chief Justice of the High Court of Kerala with the approval of the Governor of Kerala hereby appoints Trivandrum as a place where judges and Division Courts of the High Court may also sit to dispose of such cases as may from time to time be specified in this behalf by the Chief Justice".

Thereafter judges of the court, nominated by the Chief Justice, have been sitting at Trivandrum either singly or as a division court and hearing and disposing of such cases as are from time to time specified by the Chief Justice. Exts. R-2 to R-5 are some of the notifications issued by the Chief Justice in this connection. But, all institutions were at the registry at the principal seat of the High Court at Ernakulam, and no papers were filed at the office at Trivandrum save papers and interlocutory applications connected with, or arising in, the cases specified to be heard and decided at Trivandrum, the Joint Registrar or other officer functioning at Trivandrum being empowered by an office order dated 18-12-1956 (Ext. R-6) to receive such papers and applications.

3. On the 28th September, 1957, the present petitioner presented the civil revision petition, Ext. P-1, against an order (Ext. P) of the Principal Munsiff of Neyyattinkara, to the respondent, an Assistant Registrar of this court, who was at the time in charge of the office at Trivandrum. The respondent returned the civil revision petition with the following endorsement:

"The notification issued by the Hon'ble The Chief Justice on 12-12-1956 does not authorise me to receive this C. R. P. It is therefore returned".

On 9-10-1957, the petitioner, being aggrieved with the aforesaid return, brought the present petition under Art.226 of the Constitution praying for the following reliefs:

"(a) the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate directions or orders quashing the order or endorsement of the respondent written on Ext. P-1 refusing to receive Exts. P and P-1 and returning the same to the petitioner and,

(b) "the issue of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate directions or orders compelling the respondent to receive or accept at Trivandrum Exts. P and P-1 as duly filed before the High court of Kerala State sitting at Trivandrum under S.51 (3) of the States Reorganisation Act".

4. The contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is that once action is taken under S.51 (3) of the States Reorganisation Act, the judges and division courts sitting at the appointed place, in this case Trivandrum, constitute the High Court for the State concerned sitting at that place, and that the restriction - if it is a restriction - contained in the last clause of the Chief Justice's notific