TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 1122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alling within the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Bench at Madras at Madurai Bench also as the Writ Petitions falling within the Madurai Bench jurisdiction are being numbered and listed by the Registrar General of the Madras High Court before the Principal seat at Madras by considering the representation, dated 18.4.2011 and pass further orders. 2. In the representation, dated 18.4.2011 addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, Registrar General of the Madras High Court and the Registrar (Judicial), Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, it was stated by the Petitioner that the Madurai Bench was started functioning from 24.7.2004 facing grave opposition mostly from the practicing Advocates at the Principal seat. After great, struggle by the Advocates of the Southern Districts, the Madurai Bench became a reality. Once the Madurai Bench became a reality, few districts which were originally designated to the Madurai Bench were taken away by undue influence attached to the Principal seat. To add to this, Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution were being filed at the Principal seat even though there is no territorial jurisdiction for the same. This is b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ices to all Associations numbering 10 intimating that the matter will be heard for arriving at a final decision. 5. Thereafter, the Division Bench on 26.9.2011 passed the following interim order: We have heard the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. S. Muthukumarasamy, appearing for the Registrar General. After hearing the arguments rightly on the jurisdiction of this Bench, in respect of the category of case, which arise from the special enactments like Excise Act, Customs Act, Companies Act and Income Tax Act, especially taking note of the latest judgments on the issue of the Supreme Court in Ambica Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excises, 2007 (6) SCC 769 Stridewell Leathers (P) v. Bhankerpur Simbhaoli Beverages, 1994 (1) SCC 34 and in Ambica Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excises, 2007 (6) SCC 769, the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealt with the Central Excise Act, which has been taken as a third category, has held that the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court is to be determined as per the provisions of the statute concerned by following the earlier judgments in Stridewell Leathers v. Bhankerpur Simbhaoli Beverages (P) Ltd., and other Cases. Since a crucial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aswamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the High Court, M/s. K. Vellaichamy, Sree Kumaran Nair, Lajapathi Roy, Ajmalkhan and Nisha Banu for various associations of lawyers at Madurai and Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Ayyadurai, representing the Madras Bar Association as well as Madras High Court Advocates' Association. 8. After the Full Bench started hearing the case, it was brought to the notice by the Registry that the Counsel appearing for the Petitioner had issued a legal notice dated 8.11.2011 to the Respondents in their personal names stating that they have filed a false Counter Affidavit and they were employing delay tactics. The unnecessary delay on the part of the Registry was paving way for further territorial transgression and that they have committed contempt. The Full Bench took strong exception to such threatening and distasteful language used by the Counsel for the Petitioner and warned that such a notice issued by him to the Respondents pending adjudication on the issue was unwarranted and unless it was withdrawn, the matter will not be heard further. The Counsel on realizing his mistake unconditionally withdrew the letter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 51 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (37 of 1956), read with Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), the President, after consultation with the Governor of Tamil Nadu and 1 the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, is pleased to make the following order to amend the Madras High Court (Establishment of a Permanent Bench at Madurai) Order, 2004, namely: 1. (1) This Order may be called the Madras High Court (Establishment of a Permanent Bench at Madurai) Amendment Order, 2009. (2) It shall come into force on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette. 2. In the Madras High Court (Establishment of a Permanent Bench at Madurai) Order, 2004, in paragraph 2, the words Nagapattinam and Perambalur shall be omitted. 3. Any Appeal, Application for leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court, Application for review and other proceedings pertaining to the Districts of Nagapattinam and Perambalur pending for disposal in the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court prior to commencement of this Order shall stand transferred to the principal seat of the Madras High Court. 11. This decision by the H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Madurai Bench. In view of the order of the Honourable the Chief Justice cited in the reference, all pending cases of any nature, arising out of the above revenue/judicial districts within the jurisdiction of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, be immediately transferred to be heard at Madurai Bench of Madras High Court at Madurai. 12. The Writ Petitions challenging the Presidential Notification came to be dismissed by a Division Bench headed by B. Subhashan Reddy, C.J. and was upheld vide its judgment in V. Subramanian v. Union of India, 2004 (4) ML J 380 (Mad). Ever since the Notification issued, the Registry has been following those circulars and orders. In paragraphs 9 14 of the counter, it was averred as follows: 9....Whenever any Writ Petition is filed before the Principal seat or the Permanent Bench Seat, the Registry examines the matter and numbers the case if it is found that the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the respective seats. Wherever it is found by the Registry that there is no territorial jurisdiction, the papers are returned to the Counsel on the ground of want of jurisdiction. Wherever there is doubt regarding territorial juri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 01 (2) SCC 294. In that case, the Rajasthan High Court Advocates' Association filed a Writ Petition. The question raised was whether inserting an explanation to the earlier order of the Acting Chief Justice, dated 23.12.1976 by a subsequent order dated 12.1.1977 was ultra vires of the powers of the Chief Justice ? It was contended that except States Reorganisation Act and the Presidential Order, there is no other provisions of law authorizes the Chief Justice to define whether the cause of action in a Writ Petition would be deemed to have arisen so as to determine where it would be filed. The High Court had upheld the contention and struck down the explanation. 15. The Explanation appended to the earlier Notification read as follows: 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. 16. Aggrieved by the same, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the permanent Bench at Jaipur is to be exercised in respect of the cases arising in the specified districts. Whether the case arises from one of the specified districts or not so as to determine the jurisdictional competence to hear by reference to territory bifurcated between the principal seat and the Bench seat, shall be an issue to be decided in an individual case by the Judge or Judges hearing the matter if a question may arise in that regard. The impugned explanation appended to the order of the Chief Justice dated 23.12.1976 runs counter to the Presidential Order and in a sense it is an inroad into the jurisdiction of the Judges hearing a particular case or cases, pre-empting a decision to be given in the facts of individual case whether it can be said to have arisen in the territory of a particular district. The High Court is right in taking the view which it has done. 18. It was submitted at the end by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the Division Bench of the High Court in its impugned order has observed that the permanent Bench at Jaipur shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear the cases arising out of the 11 specified districts and the High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 001 (2) SCC 294, similar disputes arose in the Allahabad High Court regarding the issue of jurisdiction between the Allahabad Bench and the Lucknow Bench. The earliest case was Sri Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, 1975 (2) SCC 671. In that case, the Supreme Court in paragraphs 37 to 39 had observed as follows: 37. The conclusion as well as the reasoning of the High Court is incorrect. It is unsound because the expression cause of action in an Application under Article 226 would be as the expression is understood and if the cause of action arose because of the Appellate order or the Revisional order which came to be passed at Lucknow then Lucknow would have jurisdiction though the original order was passed at a place outside the areas in Oudh. It may be that the original order was in favour of the person applying for a Writ. In such case an adverse Appellate order might be the cause of action. The expression cause of action is well-known. If the cause of action arises wholly or in part at a place within the specified Oudh areas, the Lucknow Bench will have jurisdiction. If the cause of action arises wholly within the specified Oudh areas, it is indisputable t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 the specified areas, it will be open to the litigant to frame the case appropriately to attract the jurisdiction either at Lucknow or at Allahabad. Fifth, a criminal case arises when the offence has been committed or otherwise as provided in the Criminal Procedure Code. That will attract the jurisdiction of the Court at Allahabad or Lucknow. In some cases depending on the facts and the provision regarding jurisdiction, it may arise in either place. 39. Applications tinder Article 226 will similarly lie either at Lucknow or at Allahabad as the Applicant will allege that the whole of cause of action or part of the cause of action arose at Lucknow within the specified areas of Oudh or part of the cause of action arose at a place outside the specified Oudh areas. (Emphasis added) 22. Subsequently, the Supreme Court faced another litigation arising out of the territorial jurisdiction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case is only the litigant before the Court. Issue relating to want of jurisdiction can be raised only before the next Appellate forum, (i.e., either before the Division Bench or before the Supreme Court as the case may be). Such orders cannot be attacked collaterally that too by third parties to the litigation. 25. The Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition is vague in respect of particulars. Sweeping statements were made against the conduct of the Registry in allegedly entertaining matters which are to be brought before the Madurai Bench, but were erroneously entertained by the Principal Bench. To put it in nutshell, in each case, when there is Application or non Application by the Registry in numbering the matter, the concerned Judge further takes the responsibility of either entertaining the case or returning the matter for proper presentation before the appropriate Bench. Even assuming there has been certain lapses, then nothing prevented the contesting Respondents in those cases to raise the issue in an appropriate manner. There will be time enough for the Hon'ble Judges of this Court to pass orders in those matters, after deciding the jurisdictional issue als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for transfer under Sections 22 to 24 of the C.P.C., partakes the character of an original proceeding and can be filed before the Principal Bench or the Permanent Bench depending upon the cause of action or the reason for filing such Transfer Petition. In order to avoid any possible confusion in such matter relating to filing of transfer position, we make it clear that where a person seeks transfer of a case from a place to another place coming within the jurisdiction of one Bench, such Transfer petition has to be filed before the very same Bench. On the other hand, where transfer is sought from a Court coming within the jurisdiction of the other Bench, such transfer Petition can be filed before either Bench, obviously depending upon the cause of action for such transfer Petition and the convenience of the Petitioner. (6) The Honourable the Chief Justice has discretion to direct that any Writ filed or pending before the Principal Bench or the Permanent Bench can be taken up for disposal before the Permanent Bench or the Principal Bench, as the case may be. This should have set at rest all controversies regarding the jurisdiction between two Benches. But unnecessary contro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Registry will have to apply its mind in this regard. The Chief Justice alone is the competent authority to decide the posting of the matter either before the Principal Bench or before the Madurai Bench. Even for taking suo motu cognizance of the matter, a Division Bench of this Court presided by M.Y. Eqbal, C.J. vide decision in The Chief Election Commissioner, The Election Commission of India, Nirvachan Sadhan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi and others, 2011 (6) CTC 129, expressed caution about taking suo motu cognizance in the public interest litigation. In paragraph 2, it was observed as follows: 2. Before going into the merits of the case, we would, like to express our view with regard to the power of the Hon'ble Judges in initiating Writ proceeding suo motu. There is no dispute that initiation of Writ proceeding suo motu, in public interest, is within the competence of every Hon'ble Judge of this Court, which is the integral part of the Constitutional scheme. But, such power is required to be exercised and regulated in accordance with the rules made by the High Court and the norms set keeping in view the administrative instructions issued and roster of sitting prepared by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
