9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (8) TMI 126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court sitting at Lucknow dated 15 September, 1966 in Writ Petition No. 750 of 1964 is a nullity. The facts in Writ Petition No. 3294 of 1970 are these. The Regional Transport Authority, Bareilly fixed the strength of Chandausi-Rajghat route at 5 stage carriage permits. The appellant and the respondent No. 3 applied for grant of permits. The Regional Transport Authority, Bareilly, by order dated 2 October, 1961 instead of granting five permits, increased the strength of the route to 15 permits and granted one permit each to the appellant, the respondent No. 3 and 13 others. The permit granted to the appellant was valid from 9 June, 1961 to 8 June 1964. The unsuccessful appellants filed appeals against the order. By an order dated 28 March, 1963, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal at Lucknow allowed all the nine appeals and remanded the matter to the Regional Transport Authority, Bareilly, for reconsideration. The Regional Transport Authority, Bareilly, by an order dated 28 April, 1964 granted five permits, one of which was granted to the respondent No. 1. The appellant was not granted a permit. The Regional Transport Authority, Bareilly had, in the meanwhile, 20 February, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clusive jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court, sitting at Allahabad, and it had nothing to do with the Oudh territory. The matter was referred to the Full Bench. In Civil Appeal No. 1941 of 1972 the appellants filed writ petition No. 470 of 1971 in the High Court at Lucknow for a writ of certiorari for quashing order dated 11 December, 1970 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Shahjahanpur, with headquarters at Lucknow. The appellants filed objections under section 9 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954. Their objections were allowed by the Consolidation officer. On appeal the order was upheld by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Shahjahanpur. The respondent No. 1 to went up in revision and the Deputy Director, Consolidation, on 11 December, 1970, set aside the order. It is this order which forms subject-matter of writ petition No. 4170 of 1971. On 26 July, 1971 the writ petition was listed for orders before a Division Bench consisting of the Chief Justice of the High Court and another learned Judge sitting at Lucknow. The Registry of the High Court at Lucknow reported that the petition related to the District of Shahjahanpur and question was raised as t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded by the Judges at Allahabad in the absence of an order contemplated by the second proviso to Article 14 of the Amalgamation order, 1948. (4) The expression in respect of cases arising in such areas in oudh used in the first proviso to Article 14 of the High Court (Amalgamation) order, 1948, refers to legal proceedings, including civil cases, criminal cases, petitions under Articles 226, 227 and 228 of the Constitution and petitions under Articles 132 133 and 134 of the Constitution instituted before the Judges sitting at Lucknow and having their origin, in the sense explained in the majority judgment in such areas in oudh as the Chief Justice may direct. The expression arising in such areas in oudh refers to the place where the case originated in the sense explained in the majority judgment and not to the place sitting of the last court or authority whose decree or order is being challenged in the proceeding before the High Court. (5) The Lucknow Bench have no jurisdiction to hear writ petition No. 750 of 1964 which gave rise to writ petition No. 3294 of 1970. The United Provinces High Courts (Amalgamation) order, 1948, hereinafter referred to as the order, was pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , paragraph 3 of the order which states that there will be one High Court by the name of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad indicates that the permanent seat is at Allahabad. Second, the second proviso to paragraph 14 of the order which confers power on the Justice in his discretion to order that any case or class of cases arising in Oudh areas shall be heard at Allahabad, shows that there is one identifiable permanent seat and that is the principal seat of the High Court at Allahabad. Third, the words the new High Court and the Judges and division courts thereof, shall sit at Allahabad or at such other places in the United Provinces as the Chief Justice may, with the approval of the Governor of the United Provinces, appoint occurring in the main provision of paragraph 14 of the order mean that the word or occurring between the words Allahabad and at such other places is to be read as and . The second matter decided by the High Court is that the Judges at Lucknow Bench will hear cases arising in specified Oudh areas as the Chief Justice directs. The High Court held as follows. It is open to the Chief Justice to reduce the areas in Oudh referred to in the list pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would heard in the second proviso to paragraph 14 of the order is not confined to the actual hearing of cases but will include the proceeding stages of the institution of a case and of its, being entertained by the High Court. If cases arising in Oudh areas can be transferred by the Chief Justice for being heard at Allahabad, it obviously means that cases arising in Oudh areas are cases which are instituted because they arise in Oudh areas. The second proviso means that cases covered by the direction of the Chief Justice cannot be instituted at Lucknow but only at Allahabad for being heard there. The second proviso to paragraph 14 of the order qualifies the second part of the first proviso. The second proviso deals with cases arising in the specified Oudh areas, and provides an exception to the rule stated in the second part of the first proviso. The effect of reading the two provisos together is that the Judges at Lucknow are alone competent to hear cases arising in the specified oudh areas except where the Chief Justice orders that any such case or class of cases shall be heard at Allahabad. On this reasoning the High Court has that paragraph 14 of the order first provides ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal order passed outside the oudh areas has been reversed or modified or confirmed at a place within the Oudh areas it is not the place where the ultimate or the appellate order is passed that will attract jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench. In most cases where an appeal or revision will lie to the State Government, the order will be made at Lucknow. In all such cases, if it be held that the place where a case can be said to arise is where the ultimate or appellate order is passed by the authority, the Judges at Lucknow would then have jurisdiction even though the controversy originally arose and the original order was made by an authority outside the specified Oudh areas. In all cases a writ petition filed in the High Court would be a case arising at Lucknow. It is on this reasoning that the High Court strictly confined the jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench under Article 226 to the right which the petitioner pursues throughout the original proceedings, the appellate proceedings and thereafter in the High Court. The right of the petitioner is the right which first arose and if the place where the right first arose will be within the Oudh areas then the Lucknow Bench will have jurisd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eft to prudence of the authorities mentioned as to what other places should be determined. In the normal understanding of the matters, it is left to the discretion of the authorities as to whether the seats at Allahabad as well as at Lucknow will be changed. Both places may continue. Both places may be changed. Lucknow is the seat of the Government. Allahabad has also the history that the High Court was there before the order. Lucknow has been the principal place of oudh. The order aimed at giving status to the Chief Commissioner s Court as that of the High Court. It is difficult to foresee the future whether the authorities will change the location to other places but no idea of permanent seat can be read into the order. One can only say that it is the wish and hope that both Allahabad and Lucknow will be the two important seats so that history is not wiped out and policy is not changed. The conclusion of the High Court that the first proviso to paragraph 14 of the order means that the areas in oudh may be decreased is not the correct construction. The first proviso deals with nomination by the Chief Justice from time to time of not less than two Judges sitting at Lucknow. An a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovision except paragraph 11 in the order as to what the areas in oudh are or will be. Historically, the territories with 12 Districts of Lucknow, Faizabad, Sultanpur, Rai Bareli, Pratap Garh, Barabanki, Gonda, Baharaich, Sitapur, Kheri, Hardoi and Unnao, were brought under the then British Crown within the jurisdiction of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of oudh at Lucknow. This was under the Government of India order dated 4 February 1856. (See: Laws of non-Regulations Provinces 1863 by Lord G. Campell, Judicial Commissioner oudh). In 19 5 oudh Courts Act was passed by the Uttar Pradesh Legislature. The Chief Court (If oudh with only Chief Justice and four Puisne Judges was established replacing the Judicial Commissioners Court. In 1937 by the Government of India (Adaptation of Indian Laws) order 1937 it was provided that the Chief Court of Oudh shall consist of Chief Justice and such other Judges as may be appointed under the Government of India Act, 1935. Later, two more additional Judges were appointed. In this background the Order of 1948 came into existence and the new High Court was established with its seats at Allahabad and Lucknow. It, therefore, follows that when t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the concurrence of the Chief Justice so directs that the first proviso to paragraph 14 of the order both with regard to sitting of Judges at Lucknow and exercising jurisdiction in respect of cases arising in areas in oudh will cease to have any significance in relation to Lucknow. The meaning of the expression in respect of cases arising in such areas in oudh in the first proviso to paragraph 14 of the order was answered by the High Court that with regard to applications under Article 226 the same will be a case arising within the areas in oudh, only if the right of the petitioner in such an application arose first at a place within an area in oudh. The implication according to the High Court is that if the right of the petitioner arose first at any place outside any area in oudh and if the subsequent orders either in the revisional or appellate stage were passed by an authority within an area in oudh then in such cases the Lucknow Bench would not have any jurisdiction. The factor which weighed heavily with the High Court is that in most cases where an appeal or revision would lie to the State Government, the impugned order would be made at Lucknow and on that view practica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se or class of cases arising in oudh areas shall be heard at Allahabad. Any case or class of cases are those which are instituted at Lucknow. The interpretation given by the High Court that the word heard confers powers on the Chief Justice to order that any case or class of cases arising in oudh areas shall be instituted or filed at Allahabad, instead of Lucknow is wrong. The word heard means that cases which have already been instituted or filed at Lucknow may in the discretion of the Chief Justice under the second proviso to paragraph 14 of the order he directed to be heard at Allahabad. Fourth, the expression cause of action with regard to a civil matter means that it should be left to the litigant to institute cases at Lucknow Bench or at Allahabad Bench according to the cause of action arising wholly or in part within either of the areas. If the cause of action arises wholly within oudh areas then the Lucknow Bench will have jurisdiction. Similarly, if the cause of action arises wholly outside the specified areas in oudh then Allahabad will have jurisdiction. If the cause of action in part arises in the specified oudh areas and part of the cause of action arises outside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
