( 1 ) THIS case comes before us on account of somewhat divergent views expressed by S. B. Sen, J. and Oza J. about the competence of the President to issue under section 51 (2) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 any notification in so far as it may be regarded as (i) taking away the power of the Judges, sitting for the time being at the seat of one of the permanent Benches, to hear a case arising in a revenue District, the jurisdiction and power in regard to which are not given by the notification to that permanent Bench or (ii) as restrictively limiting the jurisdiction of a permanent Bench to cases mentioned in the notification relating to its constitution.

( 2 ) IN the course of his order Sen J. stated:

"from what we have stated earlier, It is clear that the notification of oza J. , however, had in mind another aspect of the question when he stated: "in the light of the discussion above, It appears that the contention that the President, acting under Section 51 (2) of the Act, had no power to prescribe the jurisdiction of the permanent Bench is without force. "

( 3 ) THE relevant notification relating to the permanent Bench at Indore reads:

"in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 51 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (37 of 1956), I, Zakir Husain, president of India, after consultation with the Governor of Madhya pradesh and the Chief Justice of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh hereby establish a permanent Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore and further direct that such Judges of the High Court of madhya Pradesh, being not less than four in number, as the Chief Justice may from time to time nominate, shall sit at Indore in order to exercise the jurisdiction and power for the time being vested in that High Court in respect of cases arising in the Revenue Districts of Indore, Ujjain, dewas, Dhar, Jhabua, Ratlam, Mandsaur, West Nimar, Shajapur and rajgarh: provided that the Chief Justice may, for special reasons, order that any case or class of cases arising in any such district shall be heard at Jabalpur. "

It would appear that there is nothing in this notification which precludes the judges constituting for the time being the permanent Bench at Indore from hearing cases other than those indicated In the notification. For example, if a case which should ordinarily be heard at the main seat of the High Court, is directed by the Chief Justice to be heard by the permanent Bench at Indore, the notification cannot stand in the way of the Bench hearing it. In other words, the notification purports to provide that the power and jurisdiction in regard to certain cases therein specified would be exercisable unless the Chief Justice acting under the proviso otherwise directs, by the permanent Bench sitting at Indore. But it is silent about the power and jurisdiction of that Bench in regard to all other cases and those must, therefore, be regarded as remaining unaffected and unimpaired. There is also another notification relating to the establishment of a permanent bench at Gwalior which contains identical provisions and that too should be similarly construed. It follows that the question in this case is not whether the power and jurisdiction of certain Judges to hear cases from other areas have been taken away or whether the President has, under Section 51 (2) of the States reorganization Act, power to limit the jurisdiction of a permanent Bench to certain specified cases. The question is Whether the permanent Bench at Indore could hear a case which arose from one of the Revenue Districts mentioned in the notification relating to the permanent Bench at Gwalior. The preliminary objection on behalf of the appellant raised precisely the same question and, in the circumstances, that is the only question arising for consideration by the Full bench, especially when the Division Bench did not formulate any question for consideration by the Full Bench. ( 4 ) THE suit, out of which this app