1976 Supreme(MP) 77

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
S. M. N. Raina, G. L. Oza, S. R. Vyas, S. S. Sharma and J. P. Bajpai, JJ.
ABDUL TAIYAB ABBASBHAI MALIK - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA (UOI) - Respondents
Misc. Petn. 240 Of 1976
Decided On : 08/23/1976

Headnote:(1) Constitution of India - Arts. 225 & 226 - Rules made by the High Court for writ petitions-are supplemental to earlier rules-rules under previous Constitution Acts presented - Government of India Act, 1915 - S. 108(1).

       There is no merit in the argument that the power vested in the High Court under sub-section (1) of S.108 of the Government of India Act, 1915, which was preserved and continued by section 223 of the Government of India Act, 1935, was a limited one and could only be exercised in respect of such jurisdiction as the High Court possessed on the date when the Act of 1915 came into force or on the date when the rules were framed. The power to frame rules was conferred on the High Court in order to enable it to regulate the exercise of its jurisdiction, including such jurisdictions as may be vested in it from time to time. The word "vested in the Court" in sub• section (1) of section 108 of the Government of India Act, 1915 cannot be narrowly construed so as to mean "now vested in the Court".

       It is, therefore, clear that the rules framed by the High Court in order to regulate the exercise of its jurisdiction would govern every aspect of such jurisdiction as may be vested in it from time to time unless they are inconsistent with statutory rules or provisions relating to the exercise of such jurisdiction. AIR 1953 SC 357 relied on. [Para 20]

       (2) High Court Rules - Chap. I, R. 7 - Full Bench - means Bench consisting of three or more judges-it cannot means Full Court. [Para 22]

       (3) Constitution of India - Art. 226 - locus standi to file writ petition-person must be an aggrieved party-Chief Justice passing an order that certain cases may be heard at certain Benches-advocates have no locus standi to file writ petitions against such orders.

       Per Oza, J. (Vyas and Sharma JJ. agreeing) - It cannot be doubted that a petition under Article 226 cannot be entertained so long as the petitioner is not able to suggest a right which may either be under the Constution or a statutory right, protection which he seeks in a petition under Article 226, AIR 1976 SC 1207 relied on. [Para 189]

       It was seriously contended that an Advocate practising in the High Court has a right to practise. It is not in dispute. But could it not be pointed that an advocate practising in the High Court has any right to insist on the hearing of his case at a particular place.

       [Paras 190 & 192]

       Per Raina, J. (Bajpai, J. agreeing) - The members of the legal profession have to play a crucial role in the enforcement of the rule of law and are, therefore, naturally interested in matters pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Courts, to entertain petitions for the vindication of fundamental and other rights. In the instant case the principal issue involved in the controversy before us is whether Jabalpur, being the principal seat of the High Court, every person, whose case arises within any part of the territories of the entire state, is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court at Jabalpur. Connected with this right of the parties is the right of the petitioners to assist the parties as advocates in the enforcement of such right. It is, therefore, obvious that the petitioners are vitally interested in the matter and fall within the category 'persons aggrieved.' [Paras 36 & 208]

       (4) States Reorganisation Act, 1956 - S. 51-is not ultra vires of the Parliament-Constitution of India - Arts. 3 and 4.

       The provisions of section 51 of the States Reorganisation Act are intra vires and no part of it was beyond the competence of the Parliament.

       [Paras 57, 130 (1), 157, 160 and 208]

       (5) States Reorganisation Act, 1956 - S. 51(2) - does not suffer from the vice of excessive delegation. [Para 58]

       (6) States Reorganisation Act, 1956 - Sec. 51 - principal seat - meaning of.

       The word 'Court' means a place where justice is judicially administered. The principal seat of a High Court would, therefore, means the chief or primary place where justice can be administered by the High Court to a needy party which seeks to invoke its jurisdiction.

       [Paras 63 & 64]

       (7) States Reorganisation Act, 1956 - S. 51(2)-powers of the President-power of Chief Justice to allocate business of the High Court not affected-jurisdiction of Jabalpur seat and Indore and Gwalior Benches.

       Under sub-section (2) of section 51 of the Act all that the President can provide is the nature of the business which the Benches would be competent to transact and not the nature of the business which the High Court would be competent to transact at its principal seat. It is for the Chief Justice to allocate business by a roster under the Rules and since the President has no power under the said sub-section to allocate the business of the High Court, the power of the Chief Justice to allocate the business of the High Court under the High Court Rules remains unaffected except that only cases arising out of the district assigned to the Benches can be allotted to them. [Para 81]

       The High Court while sitting at Jabalpur, is competent to exercise jurisdiction in respect of any case arising in any part of the territory of Madhya Pradesh without any qualification of specification; while the permanent Benches at Indore and Gwalior are competent to exercise jurisdiction only in respect of cases arising within the districts assigned to them under the Presidential Orders. [Paras 119 & 130 (2)]

       (8) States Reorganisation Act, 1956 – S. 51(2) -Presidential order dated 28th November 1968, Proviso-powers of the Chief Justice under the proviso-may be exercised from time to time-are not exhausted after once being exercised.

       From the very nature of the power conferred on the Chief Justice under the Proviso to the Presidential Order dated 28th November 1968, issued under section 51(2) of the States Reorganisation Act, it can legitimately be inferred that it is meant to be exercised from time to time. [Para 123]

       (9) States Reorganisation Act. 1956 - S. 51(2)-Presidential Orders dated 28th November 1968 - words 'in respect of cases arising in' - connotation of - Constitution of India - Art. 226. [Paras 125, 169 & 170

       (10) States Reorganisation Act, 1956 - S. 51(2)-Proviso to Presidential order dated 28th November 1968 - orders of the Chief Justice dated 5-2-1976 - orders are valid-effect on cases already institued as Jabalpur seat.

       Per Full Bench- The orders of the Chief Justice dated 5th Feb, 1976 are valid. [Para 135]

       Per Minority (Raina & Bajpai, JJ.) - The orders of the Chief Justice do not relate to cases arising from the districts assigned to the Benches which are pending at Jabalpur on the date of their issue. [Paras 135 and 207]

       (11) Interpretation of statutes - pari materia provision interpreted by the Supreme Court-effect-United Provinces High Courts (Amalgamation) order and Presidential Orders under section 51(2) of the States Reorganisation Act-are pari material - interpretation by Supreme Court in AIR 1976 SC 331 apply to the Presidential orders.

       [Paras 175, 176 and 177]

       (12) Constitution of India - Article 214 - jurisdiction of High Court not affected or curtailed by section 51(2) of the States Reorganisation Act.

       Bajpai, J.- These is no force in the contention that the jurisdiction of the High Court is affected or curtailed by establishing the permanent Benches and allotting certain cases or class of cases to them. Under these circumstances, there is no question of any contravention of the provisions of Article 214 or any other Article of the Constitution. The provisions made in sub-section (2) of section 51, thus cannot be said to be ultra vires.

       [Para 203]