2000 (12) TMI 891 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court affirms High Court decision on cause of action definition in writ cases

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the High Court, holding that the Acting Chief Justice's explanation defining cause of action in writ cases was ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the Presidential Order dated December 8, 1976.2. Authority of the Acting Chief Justice to pass orders under the Presidential Order.3. Jurisdictional competence of the Chief Justice to define cause of action in writ cases.Summary:1. Validity of the Presidential Order dated December 8, 1976:The Presidential Order established a permanent bench of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur, specifying that judges nominated by the Chief Justice would sit at Jaipur to exercise jurisdiction over cases arising in specified districts. The order also allowed the Chief Justice discretion to transfer cases to Jodhpur. The validity of this order was challenged but upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan in Ram Rakh Vs. Union of India & Ors. (AIR 1977 Rajasthan 243).2. Authority of the Acting Chief Justice to pass orders under the Presidential Order:The Acting Chief Justice issued orders on December 23, 1976, and January 12, 1977, to allocate jurisdiction between Jodhpur and Jaipur benches. The challenge was based on the argument that the Acting Chief Justice could not pass orders before the Presidential Order came into force and that the orders were prospective. The Division Bench did not find merit in these contentions.3. Jurisdictional competence of the Chief Justice to define cause of action in writ cases:The explanation added by the Acting Chief Justice on January 12, 1977, defining where a cause of action in a writ case would be deemed to have arisen, was challenged as ultra vires. The Supreme Court held that the Chief Justice did not have the legislative competence to define cause of action or to declare where it would be deemed to have arisen. The power to determine territorial jurisdiction in individual cases lies with the judges hearing the matter, not through an administrative order by the Chief Justice. The impugned explanation was struck down as it conflicted with the Presidential Order and encroached upon judicial functions.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the Chief Justice's explanation defining cause of action was invalid. The appeal was dismissed, maintaining that the jurisdictional division between Jodhpur and Jaipur should be determined based on the district where the cause of action arises.