2010 (11) TMI 201 - SC - Indian Laws

Order of High Court order passed without jurisdiction Two ex-parte interim orders of High Court clearly passed on extraneous considerations and such orders shocking - property in question in the district of Bahraich within the territorial jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court - writ petition could not have been validly filed or entertained in the Allahabad Bench of the High Court - Instead of filing a reply he filed a writ petition in the Allahabad bench of the High Court being writ petition - Division Bench of the High Court has rightly set aside the interim orders of the Single Judge dated 11-6-2010 and 18-6-2010 as these interim orders were clearly passed on extraneous considerations

Summary

Issues:
1. Territorial jurisdiction of the High Court
2. Maintainability of writ petition against a private body
3. Validity of interim orders
4. Judicial integrity and misconduct

Territorial Jurisdiction of the High Court:
The petition was filed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court's division Bench in Special Appeal No. 973 of 2010. The case involved a Dargah in Bahraich, Uttar Pradesh, managed by the Committee of Management of Waqf No. 19. The petitioner, claiming to be the proprietor of circuses and entertainment activities, faced issues with the Waqf refusing to allot land for a Mela event. The jurisdictional conflict arose as Bahraich falls under the Lucknow Bench of the High Court, not the Allahabad Bench. The Supreme Court cited precedent to highlight the improper filing of the writ petition in the Allahabad Bench due to territorial reasons.

Maintainability of Writ Petition Against a Private Body:
The Supreme Court noted that ordinarily, no writ petition lies against a private body. The petitioner had previously filed writ petitions in the Lucknow Bench, which were dismissed with directions to approach the District Magistrate. Despite this, the petitioner filed another writ petition in the Allahabad Bench, challenging the order of the District Magistrate. The Court emphasized the limitations of writ jurisdiction in matters involving private bodies and the need to exhaust alternative remedies before resorting to writ petitions.

Validity of Interim Orders:
The Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court had issued ex-parte interim orders directing the allotment of land for circus activities during a Mela event. The Supreme Court found these orders to be passed on extraneous considerations. The Court highlighted that interim orders should not grant final relief, citing legal precedents to support this principle. The subsequent order directing compliance further raised concerns about the propriety of the judicial actions taken.

Judicial Integrity and Misconduct:
The Supreme Court expressed deep concern over the integrity issues within the Allahabad High Court. It raised alarming observations about judges' conduct, including allegations of nepotism and unjust enrichment of their relatives practicing law. The Court emphasized the need for judicial probity and integrity, calling for necessary measures, including transfers, to address the reported misconduct. The judgment underscored the importance of maintaining public trust in the judiciary and the imperative for accountability and ethical conduct among judges.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench's decision to set aside the interim orders, highlighting the need for judicial rectitude and adherence to legal principles. The judgment underscored the significance of judicial integrity and the imperative for maintaining public confidence in the judiciary. The Court's strong remarks urged necessary actions within the Allahabad High Court to address reported misconduct and uphold the rule of law.