Important Point
The relief for a direction to CJI with regard to sitting of Supreme Court at Indore sought in a writ petition u/Art. 226 could not be granted by High Court. The writ petition should have been dismissed in limine.

Headnote:Constitution of India-Articles 226 and 130-Writ petition under Article 226 seeking the relief for a direction with regard to sitting of Supreme Court at Indore-Notice issued-Appeal against to Supreme Court - Whether maintainable? (Yes)-Can High Court give a direction under Article 226 to CJI with regard to place or places where Supreme Court should sit? (No, as it falls exclusively under Article 130 to the CJI)-Whether High Court should have refused to entertain the writ in limine? (Yes)-Appeal allowed.
       Held : We do not find any merit in this contention. At the stage of preliminary hearing of a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution the High Court is required to consider whether on the basis of the averments contained in the writ petition the petitioner therein is entitled to seek the relief prayed for and such relief can be granted by the court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. If the court is of the opinion that a prima facie case is made out for granting the relief sought in the writ petition, rule nisi is issued calling upon the person or persons against whom the relief is sought to show cause why such relief should not be granted. But if the court finds that no such prima facie case is made out, the writ petition has to be dismissed without issuing notice to the person or persons against whom the relief is sought. The object of placing a writ petition before the court for preliminary hearing is to ensure that a writ petition which is frivolous in nature or in which no relief can be granted by the court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution is dismissed at the threshold. (Para 7)
       On this view of Article 130 of the Constitution the whole edifice of the case set up the petitioners in the Writ Petition fails to the ground. We, therefore, arrive at the conclusion that the relief sought by the petitioners in the Writ Petition filed by the petitioners in the High Court could not be granted by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and the said Writ Petition could not be entertained. The issuing of a notice to the respondents in the Writ Petition would serve no useful purpose and would only distract the respondents from performing their other important functions. In our opinion, this was a case which should have been dismissed in limine and the High Court was in error in issuing a notice to the respondents to defend the Writ Petition. (Para 20)
       The appeal is accordingly allowed, the impugned order dated April 3, 1998 is set aside and the Writ Petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Para 23)

Judgment

S.C. Agrawal, J.-Leave granted.

This appeal arises out of a Writ Petition (Writ Petition No. 500 of 1998) filed by the respondents (hereinafter referred to as ‘the petitioners’) in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench. In the said Writ Petition the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs :-

“In view of the submissions made above it is prayed that the R.No. 1 herein be kindly directed to appoint INDORE as one of the places where the Hon’ble Supreme Court shall commence sittings w.e.f first working day after the summer vacations are over and the R.Nos. 2 and 3 be kindly directed to grant the needed approval as per Art. 130 of the Constitution and extend all such funds as may be required to meet the financial requirements recalling that absence of funds is no alibi in law to provide sittings at INDORE to extend the benefits of Art. 32 which in itself is a Fundamental Right guaranteed by the Constitution makers by placing it in Part III of the Constitution and such costs as deemed fit be also kindly allowed with such other reliefs or moulded reliefs as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court.”

2. The said Writ Petition was heard by a learned single Judge of the High Court who, on April 3, 1998, passed the following order:-

“Heard the Petitioners in persons.

Issue notice to the other side. P.F. within three days. The Petitioners want a notice also be sent by Registered post A.D. to lessen up.

The prayer is accepted.

The notice also be sent by Regd. Post A.D. and also by humdast over and over the normal course.”

3. The appellants have filed this appeal to challenge the said order passed by the High Court.

4. The learned Attorney General has urged that the Writ Petition of the petitioners seeking the above mentioned relief is not maintainable inasmuch as in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution the High Court cannot give a direction to the Chief Justice of India with regard to place or places where the Supreme Court should sit since this is a matter which falls exclusively within the discretionary power vested in the Chief Justice of India under Article 130 of the Constitution. It has also been urged that since the reliefs sought by the petitioners in the Writ Petition cannot be granted by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court should have refused to entertain the Writ Petition and that the learned Judge of the High Court was in error in entertaining the same and passing the impugned order.

5. In response to the notice issued by this Court the petitioners have appeared in person. S.P. Anand, petitioner No. 1, has addressed the Court in support of the impugned order of the High Court in person and the said submissions were adopted by M.L. Bapna, petitioner No. 2.

6. A preliminary objection was raised by the petitioners against the maintainability of this appeal. It has been urged that at the stage of preliminary hearing of the writ petition the High Court has the discretion to either admit it or dismiss it in limine or to entertain the same and before admitting the writ petition issue notice to the respondents. In the present case, the High Court has exercised this discretion by directing issue of notice to the respondents in the writ petition. The exercise of the said discretion by the High Court cannot be interfered by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution especially when no injury or loss has been caused by the impugned order directing issue of notice to the respondents in the Writ Petition. The submission is that in response to the notice the respondents to the writ petition can make their submissions before the High Court and, if the High Court is satisfied that there is no merit in the writ petition, it would pass an appropriate order on the writ petition. Reliance has been placed by the petitioners on the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Himansu Kumar Bose v. Jyoti Prokash Mitter & Ors.1.

7. We

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1998 Supreme(SC) 778

Important PointThe relief for a direction to CJI with regard to sitting of Supreme Court at Indore sought in a writ petition u/Art. 226 could not be granted by High Court. The writ petition should have been dismissed in limine.

Cases Referred (6)

Important Point
The relief for a direction to CJI with regard to sitting of Supreme Court at Indore sought in a writ petition u/Art. 226 could not be granted by High Court. The writ petition should have been dismissed in limine.