9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Presentation of cases within jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench at Allahabad. 2. Summary dismissal of cases pertaining to Lucknow Bench jurisdiction when presented at Allahabad. 3. Final decision of cases pertaining to Lucknow Bench jurisdiction by judges at Allahabad without an order as per the second proviso to Article 14. 4. Interpretation of "cases arising in such areas in Oudh" in Article 14 of the High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948. 5. Competence of judges sitting at Lucknow to entertain and hear a specific writ petition. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Presentation of Cases within Jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench at Allahabad The Court addressed whether a case falling within the jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench can be presented at Allahabad. The judgment concluded that "a case falling within the jurisdiction of the judges at Lucknow should be presented at Lucknow and not at Allahabad." This conclusion was based on Article 14 of the Amalgamation Order, which specifies that judges at Lucknow are to exercise jurisdiction over cases arising in specified areas of Oudh. Issue 2: Summary Dismissal of Cases Pertaining to Lucknow Bench Jurisdiction When Presented at Allahabad The Court examined whether judges at Allahabad can summarily dismiss cases that fall under the jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench if they are presented at Allahabad. It was determined that "if such a case is presented at Allahabad the judges at Allahabad cannot summarily dismiss it only for that reason." Instead, the case should be returned for filing before the judges at Lucknow, or the High Court office should transmit the papers to Lucknow if the case was mistakenly or inadvertently entertained at Allahabad. Issue 3: Final Decision of Cases Pertaining to Lucknow Bench Jurisdiction by Judges at Allahabad Without an Order as per the Second Proviso to Article 14 The Court considered whether judges at Allahabad can decide cases pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench without an order under the second proviso to Article 14. The judgment held that "a case pertaining to the jurisdiction of the judges at Lucknow and presented before the judges at Allahabad cannot be decided by the judges at Allahabad in the absence of an order contemplated by the second proviso to Article 14." Issue 4: Interpretation of "Cases Arising in Such Areas in Oudh" in Article 14 of the High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948 The Court interpreted the phrase "in respect of cases arising in such areas in Oudh" used in the first proviso to Article 14. It concluded that the expression 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 pertains to the place where the case originated, not the place of sitting of the last court or authority whose decree or order is being challenged. Issue 5: Competence of Judges Sitting at Lucknow to Entertain and Hear a Specific Writ Petition The Court addressed whether a specific writ petition could be entertained and heard by judges sitting at Lucknow. The petition in question related to orders from authorities located in Bareilly and Lucknow, but the underlying dispute involved land in Shahajahanpur. Applying the established rule, the Court concluded that the case must be said to arise in Shahajahanpur and not in an area in Oudh. Therefore, "Writ Petition No. 5833 of 1971 cannot be entertained, heard, and decided by the judges sitting at Lucknow." Conclusion: The Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court clarified the jurisdictional boundaries between the judges sitting at Allahabad and those sitting at Lucknow. The judges at Lucknow have exclusive jurisdiction over cases arising in specified areas of Oudh unless directed otherwise by the Chief Justice. Cases falling within this jurisdiction should be presented at Lucknow, and if mistakenly presented at Allahabad, they should be returned or transferred to Lucknow. The interpretation of "cases arising in such areas in Oudh" focuses on the origin of the case rather than the location of the last adjudicating authority.
|
