Back
Allahbad High Court
S.N.DWIVEDI,R.S.PATHAK,G.C.MATHUR,SATISHCHANDRA,S.L.SRIVASTAVA
Nirmal Dass Khaturia - Appellant
Versus
The State Transport (Appellate) Tribunal, U.P. Lucknow - Respondent
Decided On : 12/17/1971
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and the Chief Court of Oudh were amalgamated into a single High Court by the U.P. High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948. The Order provided that the new High Court would have jurisdiction over the entire province and that at least two judges would sit at Lucknow to exercise jurisdiction in respect of cases arising in such areas in Oudh as the Chief Justice may direct. The question arose as to whether the judges sitting at Lucknow had exclusive jurisdiction over cases arising in Oudh or whether they had concurrent jurisdiction with the judges sitting at Allahabad.
Fact of the Case:
The instant writ petition raised four questions concerning the respective areas of jurisdiction of the judges of the High Court sitting at Allahabad and the judges of the High Court sitting at Lucknow. The questions were referred to a Full Bench for opinion.
Finding of the Court:
The Full Bench held that the judges sitting at Lucknow had exclusive jurisdiction over cases arising in the specified Oudh areas except where the Chief Justice ordered that a case or class of cases should be heard at Allahabad. The Full Bench also held that the judges sitting at Allahabad could not summarily dismiss a case which should have been presented at Lucknow, but should return the case for filing at Lucknow.
Issues: 1. Can a case falling within the jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench of this Court be presented at Allahabad? 2. Can the Judges sitting at Allahabad summarily dismiss a case, presented at Allahabad, pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench? 3. Can a case pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench, presented and entertained at Allahabad, be decided finally by the judges sitting at Allahabad, without there being an order as contemplated by the second proviso to Art.14 of the U.P. High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948? 4. What is the meaning of the expression "in respect of cases arising in such areas in Oudh" used in the first proviso to Art.14 of the High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948? Has this expression reference to the place where the case originated or to the place of sitting of the last court or authority whose decree or order is being challenged in the proceeding before the High Court?
Ratio Decidendi: The Full Bench interpreted the relevant provisions of the U.P. High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948 and concluded that the judges sitting at Lucknow had exclusive jurisdiction over cases arising in the specified Oudh areas except where the Chief Justice ordered that a case or class of cases should be heard at Allahabad. The Full Bench also held that the judges sitting at Allahabad could not summarily dismiss a case which should have been presented at Lucknow, but should return the case for filing at Lucknow.
Final Decision: The Full Bench answered the questions referred to it as follows: 1. A case falling within the jurisdiction of the judges at Lucknow should be presented at Lucknow and not at Allahabad. 2. However, if such a case is presented at Allahabad the judges at Allahabad cannot summarily dismiss it only for that reason. The case should be returned for filing before the judges at Lucknow, and where the case has been mistakenly or inadvertently entertained at Allahabad a direction should be made to the High Court office to transmit the papers of the case to Lucknow. 3. A case pertaining to the jurisdiction of the judges at Lucknow and presented before the judges at Allahabad cannot be decided by the judges at Allahabad in the absence of an order contemplated by the second proviso to Art.14 of the U.P. High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948. 4. The expression "in respect of cases arising in such areas in Oudh" used in the first proviso to Article 14 of the High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948 refers to legal proceedings, including civil cases, criminal cases, petitions under Arts.226, 227 and 228 of the Constitution and petitions under Arts.132, 133 and 134 of the Constitution instituted before the judges sitting at Lucknow and having their origin, in the sense explained in the majority judgment, in such areas in Oudh as the Chief Justice may direct. The expression "arising in such areas in Oudh" refers to the place where the case originated in the sense explained in the majority judgment and not to the place of sitting of the last court or authority whose decree or order is being challenged in the proceeding before the High Court. 5. Writ Petition No. 5833 of 1971 cannot be entertained, heard and decided by the judges sitting at Lucknow.
PATHAK, J. (for himself and for Hon. G.C. Mathur, Satish Chandra and G.S.L. Srivastava, JJ.):- This reference by a Division Bench raises some important questions concerning the respective areas of jurisdiction of the judges of this Court sitting at Allahabad and the judges of this Court sitting at Lucknow.
2. In the instant writ petition, the following four questions have been referred for the opinion of the Full Bench:
"1. Can a case falling within the jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench of this Court be presented at Allahabad?
2. Can the Judges sitting at Allahabad summarily dismiss a case, presented at Allahabad, pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench?
3. Can a case pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench, presented and entertained at Allahabad, be decided finally by the judges sitting at Allahabad, without there being an order as contemplated by the second proviso to Art.14 of the U.P. High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948?
4. What is the meaning of the expression "in respect of cases arising in such areas in Oudh" used in the first proviso to Art.14 of the High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948? Has this expression reference to the place where the case originated or to the place of sitting of the last court or authority whose decree or order is being challenged in the proceeding before the High Court?"
3. In the connected writ petition, Sri H.N. Tilhari, learned counsel for the petitioners, at first questioned the competence of the reference to a Full Bench but subsequently he abandoned the objection and, indeed, pressed for a decision of the question which arises therein. Having regard to the terms of the order of reference, we have framed the following question and learned counsel for the parties are agreed that this is the question:-
"5. Whether this writ petition can be entertained and heard by the judges sitting at Lucknow?"
4. At the outset it is necessary, we think, to set out the historical background against which the questions must be
considered.
5. In the North Western Provinces of the Presidency of Fort William the Court of Sadar Diwani Adalat and Sadar Nazamat Adalat sat at Agra dealing with appeals in civil and criminal cases from the provincial courts. The Indian High Courts Act, 1861, enacted by the British Parliament, gave to the Crown authority to establish High Courts at Calcutta, Madras, Bombay and at one other place. The Sadar Court was abolished, and the Letters Patent of March 17, 1866 constituted a High Court for the North Western Provinces called the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
6. In 1856, the territories falling within Oudh had been brought under the British Crown, and a hierarchy of courts established. By the Oudh Civil Courts Act, 1879 the Judicial Commissioner was constituted the head of the judiciary.
7. The year 1901 saw the creation of the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh. The judicial administration in the two regions of the province, however, continued to remain separate. Subsequently, the Oudh Civil Courts Act, 1879 was repealed by the Oudh Courts Act, 1925, and the Court of the Judicial Commissioner was replaced by the Oudh Chief Court with jurisdiction extending over the same area. The two judicial administrations wielded jurisdiction over the two separate regions of the United Provinces for many years. Then, in deference to a growing volume of opinion in favour of a single judicial administration throughout the United Provinces, the Governor General made the United Provinces High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948. The Amalgamation Order came into force on July 19, 1948.
8. Article 3 of the Amalgamation Order provided that as from the appointed day, namely, July 26, 1948, the High Court in Allahabad and the Chief Court in Oudh would be amalgamated and would constitute one High Court by the name of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The judges of the existing High Courts, namely the Allahabad High Court and the Oudh Chief Court, became judges of t
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
