TMI Blog2005 (9) TMI 677X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de in the above Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India which challenge an order dated 19.4.2005 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune Region, Pune. Same contentions have been raised in both the Civil Applications. They are, therefore, being decided by this common order. 2. The Civil Applications are made in the Writ Petitions challenging the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune Region, Pune, refusing permission to Bara Imam Masjid Trust to alienate certain immovable properties for a consideration of about ₹ 5 crores. The permission has been applied for and refused under section 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, hereinafter referred to as the Act . The parties are hereinafter referred to in their original capacity as the petitioners and the respondent. 3. The respondent, by the present Civil Applications, has applied for return of these Writ Petitions for presenting them, if the petitioners so desire, before the Aurangabad Bench of this Court. 4. The only objection raised by the respondent is that the cause of action for these Writ Petitions has not arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gpur would clearly have jurisdiction. The provisions of Section 41, Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960 (Act No.11 of 1960) read with Rule 127, Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, cannot abridge the writ jurisdiction. The Division Bench concluded as follows:- In view of this, the contention must be negatived. But be that as it may, although the said two provisions cannot abridge the jurisdiction, the said two provisions need to be looked at in their proper perspective. The said two provisions, namely, Section 41, Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960 (Act No.11 of 1960) and the provisions of Chap. XXXI, Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 are designed to meet administrative requirements and administrative convenience. Hence it is not that every petition under Article 226 which is presented to this Bench at Nagpur that needs to be entertained and regard must be had to these two provisions in the filing of writ petitions so that the petitions can be dealt with by an appropriate Bench. However, in so far as this matter is concerned, in view of the above discussion, it cannot be said that the Bench at Nagpur has no jurisdiction to try and hear the petition. Ordinarily we are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad, Parbhani and Latur which lie to the High Court at Bombay shall be presented to the Additional Registrar at Aurangabad and shall be disposed of by the Judges sitting at Aurangabad: Provided that the Chief Justice may, in his discretion, order that any case or class of cases arising in any such District shall be heard at Bombay: Provided further that the Chief Justice may, in his discretion, order that any case presented at Bombay be heard at Aurangabad. Having regard to the aforesaid rules, it is clear that this matter has arisen within the ordinary territorial jurisdiction of the Appellate Side of the Principal Seat of this Court at Bombay. This is because the impugned permission for the alienation of the property was applied for and refused at Pune. It is of no consequence, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, that the properties are not situate within the ordinary territorial limits of the Appellate Side of the Principal Seat. 9. Dr. Tulzapurkar, the learned counsel for the petitioners has rightly submitted that what is relevant is where the impugned order was passed and not where the properties are located. 10. Mr. Anturkar, however, relied on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ywhere in the State or affect properties or persons residing anywhere in the State. What is at issue is the normal practice regulated by this Court by enacting the Bombay High Court (Appellate Side) Rules, 1960. 12. Mr.Anturkar, the learned counsel for the applicants, relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajasthan High Court Advocates' Assn. v. Union of India (2001) 2 S.C.C. 294 where the following explanation, added by the order of the learned Acting Chief Justice, was challenged:- In the above order for the explanation the following may be submitted: 'Explanation.--A writ case shall be deemed to arise in the district where the cause of action for issuing the first order pertaining to that case passed by a court, tribunal or authority has arisen irrespective of the district in which the appeal or revision from that order is heard and irrespective also of the fact whether or not there has been any modification or reversal of the order in appeal or revision. This explanation was struck down by the Supreme Court. It is clear from the above decision that it is not relevant for deciding this case since the Act does not provide for an appeal or revision agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h have arisen within the ordinary territorial jurisdiction of another Bench. 16. It must be made clear that where a part of the cause of action has arisen within the normal territorial jurisdiction of two Benches, a litigant would be entitled to approach either Bench. The Supreme Court observed in the case of Kusum Ingots Alloys Ltd. (supra) as follows:- Keeping in view the expressions used in Article 226(2) of the Constitution indisputably even if a small fraction of cause of action accrues within the jurisdiction of the High Court, the High Court will have jurisdiction in the matter. However, even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum convenient. These observations are made by the Supreme Court in the context of jurisdiction of two High Courts, but can be applied reasonably in the context of normal territorial jurisdiction of Benches within a High Court. Clearly, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
