1975 (8) TMI 126 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Modifies High Court's Answers on Jurisdiction Disputes

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal in a case involving jurisdiction disputes between Lucknow Bench and Allahabad Bench. The Court modified the ... - Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of Lucknow Bench vs. Allahabad Bench.2. Presentation and dismissal of cases at Allahabad.3. Final decision-making authority without an order under Article 14 of the U.P. High Court (Amalgamation) Order, 1948.4. Interpretation of 'cases arising in such areas in Oudh.'5. Jurisdiction of Lucknow Bench over specific writ petitions.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of Lucknow Bench vs. Allahabad Bench:The majority view of the Full Bench determined that a case falling within the jurisdiction of Judges at Lucknow should be presented at Lucknow and not at Allahabad. However, if such a case is mistakenly presented at Allahabad, it should be returned for filing before the Judges at Lucknow. The High Court concluded that the new High Court has its seat at Allahabad, which is the permanent seat, and the Chief Justice may appoint other places with the approval of the Governor. The High Court also indicated that the Chief Justice could reduce the areas in Oudh referred to in the first proviso to Paragraph 14 of the Amalgamation Order.2. Presentation and Dismissal of Cases at Allahabad:If a case pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench is presented at Allahabad, the Judges at Allahabad cannot summarily dismiss it solely for that reason. Instead, the case should be returned for filing before the Judges at Lucknow. The High Court emphasized that the jurisdiction defined by Paragraph 7 of the Order vests in the entire body of Judges and extends to all cases throughout the territories of the State.3. Final Decision-Making Authority Without an Order Under Article 14:A case pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Judges at Lucknow and presented before the Judges at Allahabad cannot be decided by the Judges at Allahabad in the absence of an order contemplated by the second proviso to Article 14 of the Amalgamation Order, 1948. The High Court held that the Chief Justice has the discretion to order that any case or class of cases arising in Oudh areas shall be heard at Allahabad.4. Interpretation of 'Cases Arising in Such Areas in Oudh':The expression 'in respect of cases arising in such areas in Oudh' refers to legal proceedings, including civil cases, criminal cases, and petitions under Articles 226, 227, and 228 of the Constitution, instituted before the Judges sitting at Lucknow and having their origin in such areas in Oudh as the Chief Justice may direct. The High Court concluded that the areas in Oudh cannot be increased or decreased by the Chief Justice from time to time. The jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench under Article 226 is confined to the right which the petitioner pursues throughout the original proceedings, the appellate proceedings, and thereafter in the High Court.5. Jurisdiction of Lucknow Bench Over Specific Writ Petitions:The Lucknow Bench has no jurisdiction to hear writ petition No. 750 of 1964, which gave rise to writ petition No. 3294 of 1970. The High Court held that the Lucknow Bench would have jurisdiction under Article 226 only in cases where the right of the petitioner arose first within the Oudh areas. The High Court's conclusion that the permanent seat of the High Court is at Allahabad is not sound, as the Order states that the High Court shall sit at Allahabad or at such other places in the United Provinces as the Chief Justice may, with the approval of the Governor, appoint.Conclusion:The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, modifying the High Court's answers to the first three questions and setting aside the answer to the fourth question. The matters are sent back to the High Court for disposal in accordance with this judgment. The parties will pay and bear their own costs.