SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Mad) 986

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
THE HON'BLE MR. SANJAY V. GANGAPURWALA, C.J., THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA, J.
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Bar Association (MMBA), Lawyers Chambers, Rep. by its General Secretary - Petitioner
Versus
A. Radhakrishnan & Ors. - Respondents
Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.57 of 2024
Decided On : 01-04-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. M. Ajmal Khan Senior Counsel For Mr. T. Cibichakraborthy.
For the Respondents: Mr. S. Ashok, Mr. A. Edwin Prabakar State Government Pleader, Mr. S. Ravichandran Addl. Govt. Pleader (HR & CE).

IMPORTANT POINT
The jurisdiction of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court includes cases arising within its designated districts, and the Chief Justice has discretion to transfer cases between benches based on the cause of action.

Headnote:

REVIEW - JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT BENCHES - Madras High Court (Establishment of a Permanent Bench at Madurai) Order, 2004; Madras High Court (Establishment of a Permanent Bench at Madurai) Amendment Order, 2009; States Reorganisation Act, 1956; General Clauses Act, 1897 - The court reviewed its earlier order regarding the jurisdiction of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, clarifying that while pan-State matters may be more appropriately heard at the principal seat, the Madurai Bench retains jurisdiction over cases arising within its designated districts. The court emphasized the Chief Justice's discretion in transferring cases and the need to respect the established jurisdictional framework, thus allowing the review petition and recalling the contested observation.

Fact of the Case:

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court Bar Association filed a review petition against a previous order that suggested pan-State matters should be litigated at the principal seat of the court rather than at the Madurai Bench. The review was limited to the observations made in paragraph 3 of the earlier order.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the observations in paragraph 3 were merely passing remarks and not binding. It reiterated the established jurisdictional framework for the Madurai Bench and the discretion of the Chief Justice in transferring cases.

Issues: Whether the Madurai Bench has jurisdiction over pan-State matters and the appropriateness of the earlier order's observations regarding the filing of such matters.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the Madurai Bench retains jurisdiction over cases arising within its designated districts, and the Chief Justice has the authority to transfer cases as necessary. The earlier order's blanket restriction on filing pan-State matters at the Madurai Bench was inappropriate and inconsistent with the established legal framework.

Final Decision: The court allowed the review petition, recalled the contested paragraph from the earlier order, and closed the related miscellaneous petition.

ORDER :

Sanjay V. Gangapurwala, C.J.

[PRAYER: Petition filed under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code to review the order dated 04.03.2021 passed in W.P.(MD) No.4725 of 2021.]

We have heard Mr. M. Ajmal Khan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S. Ashok, learned counsel for the original writ petitioner, Mr. A. Edwin Prabakar, learned State Government Pleader for the respondents 2 and 6 to 9 and Mr. S. Ravichandran, learned Additional Government Pleader (HR & CE) for the respondents 3 to 5 and 10.

2. The present review petition is filed for review of the order dated 04.03.2021 passed in W.P.(MD) No.4725 of 2021. The review petitioner is Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Bar Association. They are aggrieved by the observation made in paragraph 3 of the order dated 04.03.2021. Paragraph 3 of the order sought to be reviewed reads thus :

    “3. While it is appropriate to institute public interest litigations pertaining to the districts covered by the Madurai Bench of the High Court of Madras, when pan-State matters are the subject matter of any litigation, including the public interest litigation, they should be carried to the principal seat of the Court.”

3. The petitioner is not seeking review of the entire order. The review is restricted to the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in paragraph 3 of the order.

4. It appears that the observations made in paragraph 3 of the order sought to be reviewed were just a passing observation.

5. More over, the notification establishing the Bench at Madurai reads thus :

    "1. Short title and commencement:- (1) This Order may be called the Madras High Court (Establishment of a Permanent Bench at Madurai) Order, 2004.

(2) It shall come into force on 24.7.2004.

2. Establishment of a permanent bench of the Madras High Court at Madurai :-

There shall be established a permanent bench of the Madras High Court at Madurai, and such Judges of the Madras High Court, being not less than five in number, as the Chief justice of that High Court may, from time to time nominate, shall sit at Madurai in order to exercise the jurisdiction and powers for the time being vested in that High Court in respect of cases arising in the districts of Kanyakumari, Tirunelveli, Tuticorin, Madurai, Dindugal, Ramanathapuram, Virudhunagar, Sivaganga, Pudukkottai, Thanjavur, Nagapattinam, Tiruchirappalli, Perambalur and Karur in the State of Tamil Nadu:

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 Chennai."

Subsequently, an amendment was issued to the notification on 26.10.2009 that Nagapattinam and Perambalur Districts notified under the jurisdiction of the Madurai Bench were deleted and came to be attached to the Principal Bench. The notification dated 26.10.2009 reads as follows :

    “THE MADRAS HIGH COURT (ESTABLISHMENT OF A PERMANENT BENCH AT MADURAI) AMENDMENT ORDER, 2009

In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 51 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (37 of 1956), read with section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), the President, after consultation with the Governor of Tamil Nadu and the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, is pleased to make the following order to amend the Madras High Court (Establishment of a Permanent Bench at Madurai) Order, 2004, namely:

1. (1) This Order may be called the Madras High Court (Establishment of a Permanent Bench at Madurai) Amendment Order, 2009.

(2) It shall come into force on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.

2. In the Madras High Court (Establishment of a Permanent Bench at Madurai) Order, 2004, in paragraph 2, the words "Nagapattinam" and "Perambalur" shall be omitted.

3. Any appeal, application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, application for review and other proceedings pertaining to the Districts of Nagapattinam and Perambalur pending for disposal in the Madurai Bench of the Madras

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top