TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court dismisses Writ Petition, finding lack of standing for Advocate petitioner.</h1> <h3>B. Stalin Versus The Registrar, Supreme Court of India</h3> The Full Bench dismissed the Writ Petition, citing that the issues raised were already settled by previous judicial decisions. It was held that the ... - Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition by the Petitioner.2. Direction sought in the Writ Petition filed as a public interest litigation.3. Suo motu cognizance taken by the Division Bench.4. Direction sought under Article 226 of the Constitution.Summary:Issue 1: Maintainability of the Writ Petition by the PetitionerThe Court examined whether the Petitioner, in his individual capacity or as a representative of any Association of Advocates, is entitled to maintain the Writ Petition. The Court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Rajasthan High Court Advocates' Association v. Union of India, 2001 (2) SCC 294, which held that an Advocate has no locus standi to file a Writ Petition of this nature. The Court concluded that the Writ Petition is liable to be rejected on this ground.Issue 2: Direction sought in the Writ Petition filed as a public interest litigationThe Petitioner sought a direction to the Registrar (Judicial) of the Madurai Bench to number and list Writ Petitions falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Bench at Madras at the Madurai Bench. The Court noted that the law laid down in Rajasthan High Court Advocates' Association v. Union of India, 2001 (2) SCC 294, settled the matter, emphasizing that the cause of action must be decided based on the facts of each individual case. The Court held that the Petitioner's prayer goes contrary to the Supreme Court's dictum and cannot be granted.Issue 3: Suo motu cognizance taken by the Division BenchThe Division Bench had taken suo motu cognizance to address the jurisdictional issue between the Principal Bench and the Madurai Bench. The Court referred to the decision in The Chief Election Commissioner, The Election Commission of India, 2011 (6) CTC 129, which expressed caution about taking suo motu cognizance in public interest litigation. The Court concluded that the Chief Justice alone is the competent authority to decide the posting of matters and that the suo motu cognizance does not arise for consideration in this case.Issue 4: Direction sought under Article 226 of the ConstitutionThe Petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents not to number or list Writ Petitions, Writ Appeals, and Habeas Corpus Writ Petitions falling within the Madurai Bench territorial jurisdiction at the Principal Seat, Chennai. The Court referenced several decisions, including Sanjos Jewelers v. Syndicate Bank, 2007 (5) CTC 305, which clarified the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court held that the Chief Justice is the Master of Rolls, and the jurisdiction of each High Court is well-defined by the Presidential order and various judicial decisions. Therefore, the direction sought by the Petitioner cannot be countenanced.ConclusionThe Full Bench dismissed the Writ Petition, stating that the issues raised were already well-settled by the Supreme Court and other judicial decisions. The Court emphasized that the Petitioner, being an Advocate, cannot be considered a person aggrieved and thus cannot question such matters. The Miscellaneous Petition was also closed, and no costs were awarded.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
