2000 Supreme(SC) 2062

2001(3) Supreme 206
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Rajasthan High Court)
R.C. Lahoti and Shivaraj V. Patil, JJ.
Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association -Appellant
versus
Union of India & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 16698 of 1996
Decided on 15-12-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Mukul Rohtagi, Additional Solicitor General, B.D. Sharma, Narottam Vyas, A. Subba Rao, P. Parmeswaran, Aruneshwar Gupta, Ms. Sandhya Goswami, Sushil Kumar Jain, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Where President of India defined the territorial jurisdiction of the permanent Bench at Jaipur in relation to the principal seat at Jodhpur of High Court of Rajasthan as also for the conferment of exclusive jurisdiction to such permanent Bench to hear cases arising in Districts falling within its jurisdiction, the Chief Justice of State cannot, thereafter, artificially or indirectly take away the jurisdiction belonging to one and confer it on other.

Headnote:Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949-Section 44(2)-States Reorganisation Act, 1956-Sections 51, 54 and 57-Constitution of India-Article 226(1) and (2)-Formation of High Court of Rajasthan by Presidential order defining Territorial Jurisdictions of Jaipur as permanent seat and Jodhpur Principal seat-Exclusive Territorial jurisdictions defined-Chief Justice of High Court passing order taking away jurisdiction belonging to Jodhpur and conferring it on Jaipur on the basis of cause of action-Whether proper-High Court holding in negative-Appeal to Supreme Court-Whether High Court was right? (Yes)-Appeal dismissed.

       Held : The Presidential Order is clear. The jurisdiction allocated to the permanent bench at Jaipur is by reference to territory covered by the 11 specified districts. The proviso appended to para 2 of the Presidential Order speaks of any case or class of cases but therefrom too a power in the Chief Justice to define cause of action cannot be spelled out. (Para 9)

       Held : The establishment of a permanent Bench at Jaipur and defining its territorial jurisdiction brought out a bifurcation of State of Rajasthan into two for the purpose of division of territorial jurisdiction of the High Court between the principal seat and the permanent Bench seat. The Chief Justice of the State cannot, thereafter, artificially or indirectly take away the jurisdiction belonging to one and confer it on the other. Conferring a discretion on the Chief Justice to order any case or class of cases arising in any district within the territorial jurisdiction of permanent Bench at Jaipur shall be heard at Jodhpur cannot spell out a power to define where the cause of action shall be deemed to have arisen in a writ case. (Para 11)

       Held also : Whether or not a case arises in a district lying within the jurisdiction of bench seat - is a question to be decided judicially, in case to case, and not by an administrative order of the Chief Justice made generally. (Para 12)

       (Neither Sections 54 nor 57 of Act) spell out any legislative power having been conferred on the Chief Justice to define cause of action. (Para 13)

       Held further : The expression cause of action has acquired a judicially settled meaning. In the restricted sense cause of action means the circumstances forming the infraction of the right or the immediate occasion for the action. In the wider sense it means the necessary conditions for the maintenance of the suit, including not only the infraction of the right, but the infraction coupled with the right itself. Compendiously the expression means every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. Every fact which is necessary to be proved, as distinguished from every piece of evidence which is necessary to prove each fact, comprises in cause of action . It has to be left to be determined in each individual case as to where the cause of action arises. The Chief Justice of the High Court has not been conferred with the legislative competence to define cause of action or to declare where it would be deemed to have arisen so as to lay down artificial or deeming test for determining territorial jurisdiction over an individual case or class of cases. The permanent bench at Jaipur has been established by the Presidential Order issued under sub-section (2) of Section 51 of the Act. The territorial jurisdiction of the permanent bench at Jaipur is to be exercised in respect of the cases arising in the specified districts. Whether the case arises from one of the specified districts or not so as to determine the jurisdictional competence to hear by reference to territory bifurcated between the principal seat and the bench seat, shall be an issue to be decided in an individual case by the judge or judges hearing the matter if a question may arise in that regard. The impugned explanation appended to the Order of the Chief Justice dated 23rd December, 1976 runs counter to the Presidential Order and in a sense it is an inroad into the jurisdiction of the judges hearing a particular case or cases, pre-empting a decision to be given in the facts of individual case whether it can be said to have arisen in the territory of a particular district. The High Court is right in taking the view which it has done. (Para 15)

       Held also : Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution provide how territorial jurisdiction shall be exercised by any High Court. Although the said clauses do not deal with principal seat or permanent bench of any High Court but in our opinion, there is no reason why the principle underlying thereunder cannot be applied to the functioning of the bifurcated territorial jurisdiction between the principal seat and permanent bench seat of any High Court. In case of a dispute arising whether an individual case or cases should be filed and heard at Jodhpur or Jaipur, the same has to be found out by applying the test - from which district the case arises, that is, in which district the cause of action can be said to have arisen and then exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. (Para 16)

       Held finally : For the foregoing reasons we do not find any fault with the findings arrived at by the High Court. The appeal is dismissed. No order as to the costs. (Para 17)