High Court of Allahabad
V.N.Khare, J.
Bar Association, Board of Revenue U. P.
Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15558 of 1991
Decided On : Oct 10, 1991
None
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging the orders of the Revenue Secretary U. P. Government directing the members of the Board of Revenue to hold courts at divisional headquarters throughout the state. The petitioners sought an urgent hearing of the writ petition during the summer vacations.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Senior Vacation Judge has the power to direct the listing of cases for hearing during summer vacations only in exceptional cases that require utmost urgency. However, the court found that the present writ petition was a part-heard case before a division bench and there were no extraordinary circumstances or utmost urgency that warranted its listing before another bench for hearing during the summer vacations.
Issues: Whether the Senior Vacation Judge has the power to direct the listing of cases for hearing during summer vacations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Rules 9 and 10 of Chapter V of the Allahabad High Court Rules 1952, which empower the Senior Vacation Judge to exercise jurisdiction in connection with the arrangement of benches, listing of cases, and other like matters. The court held that the power to list cases for hearing during summer vacations is limited to exceptional cases that require utmost urgency.
Final Decision: The court rejected the petitioners' application for an urgent hearing of the writ petition during the summer vacations.
V.N.Khare, J.
1. This is an application on behalf of the petitioners praying that the writ petition may be heard and decided during Summer Vacations in view of the urgency involved in the matter.
2. The petitioners filed the aforesaid writ petition for quashing the orders dated 11-4-91, 20-4-91, 25-4-91 and 26-4-91. By the impugned orders the Revenue Secretary U. P. Government directed for holding courts by the members of the Board of Revenue at divisional Head Quarters throughout the State. This writ petition was filed on 14-5-91 and was directed to come next day. On the next date it could not be taken up and this writ petition was taken up on 17-5-91. On 17-5-91 counsel for the petitioners as well as the Advocate General for the respondents were heard at some length and the case was directed to come up on 22-5-91. The ease could not be taken up oh the said date due to the closure of the Court and thereafter this Court was closed for Summer Vacations. By means of this application the petitioners have prayed that this case may be heard during Summer Vacations and decided on merits.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to Rules 9 and 10 of Chapter-V of the Allahabad High Court Rules 1952. On the strength of these rules it was argued that I being the Senior Vacation Judge appointed by the Chief Justice, and empowered to direct the hearing of the case and inasmuch as to hear the same on merits.
4. For appreciating the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner it is necessary to quote Rules 9 and 10 of Chapter V of The High Court Rules, Allahabad which are as follows : "9. Senior Judge-Subject to any general or special order of the Chief Justice, Senior Judges at Allahabad and Lucknow shall in the absence of Chief Justice, exercise jurisdiction at their respective places in connection with the arrangement of Benches, listing of cases and other like matters " "10. Judge on duty during vacation-(1) Criminal work shall continue to be dealt with during the vacation by such Judges as may be appointed for the purpose by the Chief Justice (They may also exercise original, appellate, revisional, civil or writ jurisdiction vested in the court in fresh matters which in their opinion require immediate attention). Such jurisdiction may be exercised even in cases which are under the rules cognizable by two or more Judges, unless the case is required by any other law to be heard by more than one Judge. ((2) Subject to any general or special order of the Chief Justice, the senior most vacation Judge at Allahabad or Lucknow. as the case may be, shall in the absence of the Chief Justice, exercise jurisdiction at Allahabad or Lucknow. as the case may be, in connection with the arrangement of Benches, listing of cases and other like matters). A perusal of Rule 9 and Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 10 provides that subject to any general or special order to the Chief Justice, Senior Judges at Allahabad and Lucknow shall in absence of Chief Justice, shall exercise jurisdiction at their respective places in connection with the arrangement of Benches, listing of cases and like matters. Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 10 provides that the Judges who are appointed during vacations, may exercise original, appellate, revisional, civil or writ jurisdiction vested in the court in fresh matter which in their opinion, require immediate attention. It was contended that the Senior Vacation Judge can direct for listing of the pending petition for hearing during Summer Vacation as he exercises powers of the Chief Justice. Rule 9 and Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 10 of Chapter V of the Rules of the Court do not confer all the powers of the Chief Justice on the Senior Vacation Judges as it is subject to any general or special order of the Chief Justice. But in the present case the Chief Justice has conferred all his powers on the Senior Vacation Judge in respect of the arrangement of Benches, listing of cases and like matters. The question is as to whether t
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.