2004 (11) TMI 339 - SC - Customs

Appeal to Supreme Court - Special Leave Petition - Writ petition - High Court of Allahabad - Legislation - Executive or quasi-judicial

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution.
2. Nature of the Chief Justice's power under Paragraph 14 of the United Provinces High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948.
3. Whether the Chief Justice acted as a "Court" or "Tribunal".
4. Validity of the Chief Justice's reasons for transferring the writ petition.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution:
The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal under Article 136, arguing that the impugned order was administrative, not judicial or quasi-judicial. They cited precedents to support this view. However, the Court noted that Article 136 confers broad powers to grant special leave to appeal from any order, whether an appeal lies under law or not. The Court emphasized that Article 136 should be liberally construed to ensure fair administration of justice. The Court concluded that two conditions must be satisfied for invoking Article 136: (1) the appeal must be against a judicial or quasi-judicial order, and (2) the order must be made by a Court or Tribunal in India.

2. Nature of the Chief Justice's power under Paragraph 14 of the United Provinces High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948:
The appellant argued that the Chief Justice's power under Paragraph 14 was similar to judicial powers under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 139-A of the Constitution. The Court examined the historical context of the High Courts' jurisdiction and the specific provisions of the 1948 Order. It noted that the Chief Justice's power to transfer cases from Lucknow to Allahabad was distinct from the intra-jurisdictional distribution of work within the High Court. The Court concluded that the Chief Justice's order was quasi-judicial, given the procedural attributes and the need for an objective determination of the transfer request.

3. Whether the Chief Justice acted as a "Court" or "Tribunal":
The Court referenced previous judgments to define "Tribunal" under Article 136, noting that it includes adjudicating bodies vested with judicial functions. The Court determined that the Chief Justice, in deciding the transfer application, acted as an adjudicating body with judicial attributes, thereby qualifying as a "Tribunal" under Article 136. The Chief Justice's decision involved hearing both parties, determining the transferability of the case, and affecting the appellant's right to choose a forum, making it a judicial function.

4. Validity of the Chief Justice's reasons for transferring the writ petition:
The Chief Justice's reasons for transferring the writ petition included the jurisdictional issue of the Lucknow Bench, the location of the parties, and the status of the hearing. The Court found the factual basis for the jurisdictional reason incorrect, as the respondent's challenge to the jurisdictional order was still pending. The Court also noted that the Chief Justice's power under Paragraph 14 was contingent on the Lucknow Bench having jurisdiction, which was a judicial issue to be decided in the appellant's writ petition. The Court rejected the second reason, emphasizing the appellant's right as dominus litis. The third reason, regarding the hearing status, was found contrary to the Division Bench's order that had reserved judgment.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the Chief Justice's order transferring the writ petition, directing the Lucknow Bench to proceed with the matter. The appeal was allowed without any order as to costs.