Back
Rajasthan High Court
Sen & Shrimal, JJ.
Shri Ram Rakh Vyas - Appellant
Versus
The Union of India - Respondents
D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 5 1977
Decided On : January 28, 1977
The appellant has nowhere averted in the writ petition that the Presidential Order was issued without consultation with the Chief Justice. The impugned Notification ex facie states that the Presidential Order was issued after such consultation.
That apart, the words, after consultation with in sec. 51 (2) of the Act snakes the requirements directory. The language of sec. 51(2) of the Act is more or less the same as in Art. 320 (3) of the Constitution, It has been held in numerous decisions that a provision that A shall act after consultation with B does not mean that A is bound to follow the advise of B. There can be no doubt that the Presidential Order was strictly in confirmity with sec. 52(2) of the Act and is therefore not invalid. Even it be regarded that consultation with the Chief Justice under sec. 51(2) is obligatory, that requirement has clearly been met.
The contention that the holding of consultation with the Acting Chief Justice was no consultation within the meaning of sec. 51(2) of the Act, can hardly be accepted. Art. 223 of the Constitution provides that the Acting Chief Justice shall perform the duties of the office of the Chief Justice. The consul-tation envisaged under sec 51(2) of the Act is but one of the duties of the office of the Chief Justice. When Art 223 enjoins that when the office of the Chief Justice of a High Court is vacant, the duties of the office shall be performed by the acting Chief Justice, it follows that the consultation must be with the acting Chief Justice for the time being. The expression Chief Justice in sec. 512), in our view, must, in the context, include the acting Chief Justice for the time being lawfully exercising the duties of the office of the Chief Justice. (Paras 11, 12, 15, 15 & 18)
The appellant is not a person aggrieved and has, therefore, no locus standi to maintain the writ petition. He is an advocate practising at Jodhpur. Nothing has been brought to our notice to show which of his cases have been transferred to the Jaipur Bench. Even if that be so, he as an Advocate is entitled to appear at the Jaipur Bench and argue the cases. The appellant is not a litigant, and, therefore, is not a a person interested in the creation of the Jaipur Bench which has been formed for the convenience of the general litigant public. {Para 37}
2. The Presidential Order issued on 8-12-1976 reads:
"MINISTRY OF LAW, JUSTICE AND COMPANY AFFAIRS
(Department of Justice)
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 8th December, 1976
G. S. R. 911 (E).—The following Order made by the President under sub-section (2) of section 51 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (37 of 1956) is hereby published as required by that sub-section:—
THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (ESTABLISHMENT OF A PERMANENT BENCH AT JAIPUR) ORDER, 1976
In exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (2) of section 51 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956(37 of 1956), the President, after consultation with the Governor of Rajasthan and the Chief Justice of the High Court of Rajasthan, is pleased to make the following Order, namely:—
1. Short title and commencement.—(1) This Order may be called the High Court of Rajasthan (Establishment of a Permanent Bench at Jaipur) Order, 1976.
(2) It shall come into force on the 31st day of January, 1977.
2. Establishment of a Permanent Bench o the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur.—There shall be established a permanent Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur, and such Judges of the High Court of Rajasthan, being not less than five in number, as the Chief Justice of that High Court may, from time to time, nominate, shall sit at Jaipur in order to exercise the jurisdiction and power for the time being vested in that High Court in respect of cases arising in the districts of Ajmer, Alwar, Bharatpur, Bundi, Jaipur, Jhalawar, Jhunjhunu, Kotah, Sawai Madhopur, Sikar and Tonk:
Provided that the Chief Justice of that High Court may, in his discretion, order that any case or class of cases arising in any such district shall be heard at Jodhpur.
Sd/-
F. A. AHMED
President
New Delhi, December 9, 1976.
3. The consequential order of Honble the Acting Chief justice dated 23.12.1976 issued under the High Court of Rajasthan (Establishment of a Permanent Bench at Jaipur) Order, 1976 isas follows:—
RAJ. HIGH COURT JODHPUR NOTIFICATION
No. 1/J.D. Dated December 23, 1976
In pursuance of the High Court of Rajasthan (Establishment of a Permanent Bench at Jaipur) Order, 1976, and in exercise of the powers under sub-section (2) of section 44 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, read with sections 54 and 57 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, the Honble the Chief Justice has been pleased to order that with effect from the 31st day of January, 1977:-
(a) all cases arising in the revenue districts of Banswara, Barmer, Bikaner, Bhilwara, Chittorgarh, Churu, Dungarpur, Ganganagar, Jaisalmer, Jalore, Jodhpur, Nagaur, Pali. Sirohi and Udaipur (except such case or class of cases as may by special order be transferred to the Jaipur Bench) shall be disposed of by the Court at Jodhpur, and
(b) all cases arising in the revenue districts of Ajmer, Alwar, Bundi, Bharatpur, Jaipur, Jhalawar, Jhunjhunu, Kotah, Sawaimadhopur, Sikar and Tonk (except such case or class of cases as may by special order be transferred to the Court at Jodhpur) shall be disposed of by the Court at Jaipur.
Provided that a Vacation Judge, whether sitting at Jodhpur or at Jaipur may hear any case irrespective of the district in which it has arisen for the purpose of deciding any matter which in his opinion requires immediate action.
Explanation—A writ case shall be deemed to arise in the district where the first order pertaining to that case was passed by a Court. Tribunal or Authority irrespective of the district in which the appeal or revision from that order is heard and irrespective also of the fact whether or not there has been any modification or reversal of the order in appeal or revision.
Sd/- Ved Pal Tyagi
Chief Justice
23.12.1976"
4. The above order was modified on 12-1-1977 by the insertion of
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
