1. Since the issue raised in both the writ petitions relates to establishment of a Bench of the Madras High Court at Madurai, they are being disposed of by the following common order.

2. The petitioner in W.P.No. 2402 of 2002, who is a practising Advocate of the High Court, Madras seeks to issue a Writ of Declaration to declare the whole process of establishment of a Permanent Bench of Madras High Court at Madurai is unconstitutional and illegal.

3. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3333 of 2002, who is also a practising Advocate of the High Court, Madras, prays for issuance of a Writ of Declaration to declare the decision under Clause 31 of the Letters Patent of High Court of Madras seeking to constitute and establish a Bench of the High Court of Madras at Madurai as illegal, void and unconstitutional for being passed in violation of the legislative powers of the Parliament under Article 246 read with Entry 78, List I of VII Schedule of the Constitution of India and inconsistent with Article 214 of the Constitution of India.

4. First I shall deal with Writ Petition No. 2402 of 2002, wherein the only ground raised and argued by Mr. V. Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the High Court of Madras is not a High Court of a new State within the meaning of Section 2 (i) of States Reorganisation Act, 1956, but is an existing State as defined under Section 2 (g) of the said Act and, therefore, the whole process initiated by the High Court to establish a Bench at Madurai is against the provisions of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956, hence illegal. The other ground urged by him is that the Constitution of India also does not contemplate such a situation of establishing a Bench of a High Court outside the Principal seat of the said High Court.

5. Ondirection, learned Additional Advocate General appeared for respondents 2 and 3. He elaborately argued by drawing my attention to The Indian High Courts Act, 1861; Letters Patent, 1862; Letters Patent, 1865; The Indian High Court Act, 1865; The Indian High court Act, 1911; The Government of India Act, 1915; The Government of India Act, 1935; The Constitution of India, 1950; The Government of India (Adaptation of Indian Laws) Order, 1937 and 1950; General Clauses Act, 1897; and (The) States Reorganisation Act, 1956.

6. At the outset, it is to be mentioned that the Full Court of the High Court has taken note of a report of a Committee of Three Judges of the Madras High Court and have resolved to have a Circuit Bench of the High Court of Madras at Madurai, subject to various conditions. While doing so, the High Court has taken note of the recommendations of Justice Jaswandh Singh Commission, which had recommended the establishment of a Circuit Bench of the Madras High Court at Madurai to cater the needs of Southern Part of the State, subject to various conditions. Justice Jaswandh Singh Commission had suggested that the recommendations be implemented by issuance of a Notification by the Hon'ble Chief Justice with the approval of the Governor under Section 51 (3) of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956. Pursuant to the Resolutions passed by this Court, action has been taken to establish a Circuit Bench at Madurai, pursuant to which huge amounts have been spent in acquiring lands and putting up buildings. It is at this stage, both the writ petitions have been filed. Since the issue involved pertains to the jurisdiction to have a permanent or a Circuit Bench of a High Court in places other than the Principal seat of the High Court, it is necessary to trace the history of the High Courts in India.

7. The Indian High Courts Act, 1861 was passed on 6th August, 1861 which empowered the Crown to establish, by Letters Patent High court of Judicature at Calcutta for the Bengal Division, High Court of Judicature at Madras for Madras Division and High Court of Judicature at Bombay for the Bombay Division. On the basis of the authority given by the Indian High Courts Act