9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (1) TMI 711 - SC - Indian LawsAdministration of justice - Constitutional validity of the Bombay City Civil Court and Bombay Court of Small Causes Act, 1986 ('the 1987 Act) - abolishing Letters Patent appeals - Implementation of the Notification to a future date and giving liberty to the State Government to apply - violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India - HELD THAT - The High Court exercises judicial and administrative control over subordinate Courts in the State of Maharashtra and having regard to the interest of the litigants in the city of Bombay and having regard to the fact that there is already an institution which is working for the last 125 years, it would not be appropriate to rush through the implementation of the impugned Act without providing adequate infrastructure. It cannot be overlooked that from 1987 till this day, the State Government has not implemented the impugned Act and one of the reasons for non-implementation appears to us that the State Government was unable to provide the infrastructure including appointment of new Judges as per the recommendation of the High Court. Having regard to the peculiar circumstances which are existing in Bombay, in our opinion, it would not be in the interest of administration of justice as also in the interest of litigants or the institution to rush through in such a haste and implement the impugned Act by impugned notification dated 20th August, 1991 from 1st May, 1992. It is open to the State Government to apply to this Court seeking permission for implementation of the said Notification placing on record necessary material to show that there is adequacy of infrastructure and the requirements as to number of judges and court rooms etc. are satisfied. In this regard a report from the High Court is also required to be called as and when the State Government applies to this Court seeking permission for implementation of the said notification dated 20th August, 1991. As indicated in paragraph 18 of this judgment, it is open to the State of Maharashtra to take necessary steps to amend Section 3 of the 1986 Act for providing an appeal. Merely because an appeal is not provided in any statute, that by itself does not render a statute constitutionally invalid. It is well settled that the right of appeal is to be provided by a statute. In other words, right of appeal is statutory and not a constitutional right. This apart, if a statute does not provide an appeal in respect of certain matter, the party still will have remedy in approaching the High Court or this Court, as the case may be, in exercise of power of judicial review including under Article 136 of the Constitution. Moreover the difficulty in the case only relates to a class of cases as indicated in paragraph 18 of this judgment to such decrees, which may be passed after the commencement of the 1987 Act and 1986 Act in any suit or other proceedings pending in the High Court since before the commencement of the said Acts. This apart, as stated in paragraph 18, the State of Maharashtra is willing to take steps to provide an appeal by amending Section 3 of the 1986 Act. As regards the other contention that the Notification has been issued due to pressure brought about by a section of lawyers and for extraneous considerations, it may be stated that no particulars were given and no material was placed on record before the High Court and even before us except repeating this ground. We do not find any good ground to accept this contention advanced on behalf of the appellant. Hence, it is rejected. The argument that the 1986 Act or Adhiniyam encroaches upon the legislative power of Parliament, cannot be accepted, in the view we have taken that it was competent for the State Legislatures to pass law relating to general jurisdiction of the High Courts dealing with the topic administration of justice' under Entry 11-A of List III. Assuming that incidentally 1986 Act and the Adhiniyam touch upon the Letters Patent, the 1986 Act and Adhiniyam cannot be declared either as unconstitutional or invalid applying doctrine of pith and substance having due regard to the discussion already made above while dealing with the legislative competence of the State in passing the 1987 Act. Thus, we uphold the constitutional validity of 1987 Act, 1986 Act and the Adhiniyam. The Notification dated 20.8.1991 issued by the State of Mahrashtra shall not be implemented without further orders from this Court in the light of what is stated. In the result, Civil Appeal is dismissed subject to above observations as to the implementation of the impugned notification. Transfer Cases are dismissed. Another Civil Appeals are allowed, the impugned judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh is set aside and the writ petitions stand dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of the Bombay City Civil Court and Bombay Court of Small Causes (Enhancement of Pecuniary Jurisdiction & Amendment) Act, 1986 (1987 Act). 2. Constitutional validity of the Maharashtra High Court (Hearing of Writ Petitions by Division Bench and Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) Act, 1986 (1986 Act). 3. Correctness of the Full Bench decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh striking down the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Letters Patent Appeals Samapti) Adhiniyam, 1981 (Adhiniyam). 4. Legislative competence of the State legislatures of Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh. 5. Validity of the Government Notification dated 20th August 1991 issued by the State of Maharashtra. 6. Adequacy of infrastructure and necessary facilities for the implementation of the 1987 Act. 7. Allegations of extraneous considerations and pressure influencing the issuance of the Notification. Summary: Issue 1: Constitutional Validity of the 1987 Act The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the 1987 Act. The Court found that the State Legislature had the power to confer general jurisdiction on all courts except the Supreme Court under Entry 11-A in the Concurrent List, which includes "administration of justice." The 1987 Act, which enhanced the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Bombay City Civil Court, was within the legislative competence of the State Legislature. Issue 2: Constitutional Validity of the 1986 Act The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the 1986 Act, which abolished Letters Patent Appeals and provided for the hearing of writ petitions by a Division Bench. The Court found that the State Legislature was competent to enact the 1986 Act under Entry 11-A of List III, which deals with "administration of justice." The Act was not beyond the competence of the State Legislature and did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. Issue 3: Correctness of the Full Bench Decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court The Supreme Court set aside the Full Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had declared the Adhiniyam unconstitutional. The Court held that the Adhiniyam was within the legislative competence of the State Legislature under Entry 11-A of List III. The Adhiniyam, which abolished Letters Patent Appeals, was valid, and the writ petitions challenging it were dismissed. Issue 4: Legislative Competence of State Legislatures The Supreme Court clarified that both Parliament and State Legislatures have the power to legislate on the subject of "administration of justice" under Entry 11-A of List III. The Court emphasized that the general jurisdiction of High Courts falls under "administration of justice," and State Legislatures are competent to confer or take away such jurisdiction. Issue 5: Validity of the Government Notification dated 20th August 1991 The Supreme Court deferred the implementation of the Notification dated 20th August 1991, which sought to bring the 1987 Act into force. The Court found that the necessary infrastructure and requisite number of judges were not in place to handle the transfer of jurisdiction to the Bombay City Civil Court. The implementation of the Notification was deferred until further orders from the Court. Issue 6: Adequacy of Infrastructure and Necessary Facilities The Supreme Court concurred with the High Court's finding that the State Government had not provided adequate infrastructure and necessary facilities, such as court rooms and judges, for the implementation of the 1987 Act. The Court deferred the implementation of the Notification until the State Government could demonstrate that the necessary infrastructure was in place. Issue 7: Allegations of Extraneous Considerations and Pressure The Supreme Court rejected the contention that the Notification was issued due to pressure from a section of lawyers and for extraneous considerations. The Court found no material evidence to support this allegation and upheld the validity of the Notification, subject to the condition that its implementation would be deferred until adequate infrastructure was provided. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the 1987 Act, 1986 Act, and the Adhiniyam. The Notification dated 20th August 1991 was deferred until further orders from the Court, pending the provision of adequate infrastructure and necessary facilities. The appeals challenging the validity of the Acts were dismissed, and the Full Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court was set aside.
|
