TMI Blog1973 (9) TMI 110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was a member of the delegation opposing such Rules. The learned Advocate General and Mr. Ashok Desai raised a preliminary objection to the competency of this Bench of enter in the petition on the Appellate Side. We have heard them and Mr. Kalsekar, learned Advocate for the petitioner, as also Mr. Paranjape. Mr. Singhvi Mr. D. R. Dhanuka, Mr. M. A. Rane Mr. H.K. Shah and Mr. Mahendra Gill, learned Advocates appearing for different institutions and the learned Government Pleader, all of whom supported the petitioner. 2. This High Court since its establishment in 1862 under the Letters Patent has been exercising original as well as appellate jurisdiction and its functioning is regulated by 'the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1957 and 'Rules of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. Appellate Side, 1960' (hereinafter referred to respectively as 'O. S. Rules' and 'A. S. Rules'). Rules also provide for disposal of petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is exclusively vested in a Bench on the Appellate Side and jurisdiction of either of the two win ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s perpetuated such disabilities. He thus claims relief under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. 4. Article 227 invests this Court with supervisory jurisdiction over sub-ordinate Courts and tribunals. Order of the Assistant Master in compliance with the Assistant Master in compliance with the O. S. Rules amounts to the order of this Court itself, it is difficult to see how this Court can exercise supervisory jurisdiction over itself. Secondly, the petitioner is shown to be a resident of Bombay. He appears to be practicing in Bombay. he appear to be practicing in Bombay, having his office in Bombay. The Company petition giving rise to the present claim of unrestricted right to practise was filed on the Original Side of this Court in Bombay. his right is denied to him by an Officer or Court whose seat is located in Bombay. The rules under which such right is denied are passed and promulgated in Bombay by the High Court seat of which is in Bombay. Unfettered right to practise is claimed for appearing on the Original Side which functions only in the city of Bombay. The matter in dispute thus must be deemed to have arisen in Bombay on these undisputed facts. Thus this petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing or supervisory powers over him to Article 227 cannot be invoked to correct supposed or true errors of the Judge or the Officers of this Court. It is difficult to conceive of subordination of any Judge, or of such Officer exercising the delegated powers of the Judge to their own High Court. 8. Mr. Shah's reliance on the judgment in the case of Mohanlal v. Keshavlal. AIR1943Bom441 , to support his contention that the Assistant master is a statutory Court or tribunal is misconceived. The learned Chief Justice in that case was dealing with the office of the Taxing Master created under the Court fees Act. In the present case, Registrar or prothonotary or Assistant Master, referred to in Company (Court) Rules are not creatures of these Rules. Rules 6 thereof in terms makes O. S. Rules applicable to all proceedings under the said Company (Court) Rules. It is difficult to think of any act or order of any Judge or think of any act or order of any Judge or his delegate under these Rules, excepting as being the act or order of this Court itself. 9. We do not propose to rest our judgment on the absence of necessary averments in the petition as to the application of Article 227. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments also into account for deciding the preliminary objection as we would have granted leave to amend readily, had this amendment been of any help to the petitioner. Several other objections as to the validity of such interpretation of Section 30 or to the possibility of the petitioner's succeeding ultimately in getting writ issued in this Court shall have to be ignored at this stage as the same are not connected without the interpretation of the relevant O. S. or A. S. Rules or the competency of either of the two wings to entertain this petition. 11. In our opinion fact in para. 8 or intended para, 8-A and the prayer clause based therein do not make any difference. In the first instance, even the prayer for direction to implement Section 30 cannot be divorced from his main grievance of the appearance being wrongly denied to him by this Court in his company Petition. Implementation of Section 30 , in the context, is inseparably interlined with his claim to practice as of right in every Court and tribunal including on the Original Side. Matter in dispute thus still continues to be the same i.e. unfettered right to practice on the Original Side. denied to him. Secondly, consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ettered right to practice covers the entire filed of his professional activities which ordinarily is limited to Bombay. The possible extension of dispute along with extension of his professional activities beyond Bombay cannot make difference to where such dispute substantially arises. Such dispute shall have to be held as arising substantially in Bombay even after taking into account the possibility of his getting some briefs by chance to appear in Court. Tribunal or Authorities outside Greater Bombay. Stray occasional possible further such chances cannot affect or deflect he substance of the dispute and consequently the forum. The substance of the dispute naturally must be deemed to have arisen at the ordinary place of residence and practice, i.e. in Bombay, Reliance by Mr. Shah on the judgment in the case of United Motors (India) Ltd. v. State of Bombay (1953)55BOMLR246 is of no material use, a in that case imminent danger of illegal impost in Violation of the fundamental right of the petitioner was found to exist. Threat to the supposed right to practice of a Bombay practitioner before authority outside Bombay is too remote or far fetched, apart from the said grievance forming ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
