Partly allowed

Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal

Supreme Court29 Aug 19751975 INSC 186 · [1976] 1 S.C.R. 5051975 INSC 186

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeals concerning the jurisdictional division between the Allahabad and Lucknow Benches under the U.P. High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948. The Supreme Court held there is no permanent seat at Allahabad, the Chief Justice cannot vary the Oudh areas once fixed, and Lucknow Bench jurisdiction depends on where the cause of action arose.

What did the court decide?

Answers to questions 1-3 affirmed with modifications, answer to question 4 set aside, answer to question 5 discharged; matters remitted to the High Court; no costs.

Nasiruddin versus State Transport… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Supreme Court (1976)

505

NASIR UDDIN

v .

v . • STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

¶6

August 29, 1975

¶7

•

¶8

(A. N. RAY, C.J., K. K. MATHEW, V. R. KRISHNA !YER AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.)

¶9

¶10

United Prol'fllces High Courts (A nialga1nario11) Order, 1948, l'aragraphs 7 and 14-Seat of the High Court-Allahabad, if the pennane11f ~·eat of Hit?h Court -Chief Justice. if can reduce the areas in Oudh.

¶11

, lntQrpretation of Statutes-Plain and una1nbiguous words, 11'/ien could be interpreted in their ordinary sense.

¶12

¶13

¶14

Paragraph 7 of the United Provinces High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948, provides that (I) The new Jligh Court shall have, in respect of the whole of the lTnited Provinces, all such original, appellate and other jurisdiction as, under the la\v in force immediately before the appointed day, is exercisable in. respect cf any part of that province by either of the existing High Court; (2) The ne\V High Court shall also have in respect of any area outside the United Provinces all such original, appellate and other jurisdiction as under the law in force ima1ediately before the appointed day is exercisable in respect of that area. by the High Court in Allahabad.

¶15

Paragraph 14 of the Order provides that the new High Court. and the judges. and division courts thereof, shall sit at Allahabad or at such other places in the Unied Provinces a<; the Chief Justice may, with the approval of the Gov~rnor of the United Provinces, appoint. The first proviso to 'this paragraph provides. that unless the Governor of the United Provinces v.,rith the concurrence of the Chief Justice, otherwise directs, such judges of the riew High Court, not les'> than t\•io in nun1ber, as th Chief Justice, may, from time to time nominate, shall sit at Lucknow in order to exercise in respect of cases arising in such areas in E Oudh, s the Chief Justice may direct, the jurisdiction and po.ver for the time being vested in the new High Court. The second proviso to this paragraph provides that the Chief Justice .may in his discretion order that any case or class cf c(ses arising in the said areas shall be heard at Allahabad.

¶16

Respcndent No. 1 and respondent No. 3 filed writ petition No. 3294 of 1970 in the High Court at Allahabad. One of the grounds in the writ petition was that the I_ ucknow Bench of the Allahab'1d High Court had no j'urisdiction to entertain and decide the writ petition No. 750 of 1964 filed by the appellant. F hecausc the dispute aroe at Bareilly in Rohilkhand Division, which was within the exclu&ive jurisdiction of the Allhabad High Court. sitting at Allahabad, and it had nothing to do with the Oudh territory. The matter wa<; referred to the Full Bench.

¶17

Writ Petition No. 470 of 1971 filed in the High Court at Lucknow and Crin1inal Revision JSo. 270 of 1973 filed in the High Court at Allahabad were aboreferred 10 the Full Bench.

¶18

¶19

Five questions were referred for decision to the Full Bench. The majority view of the Full Bench gave the following answers :

¶20

(1) A ca.•e falling .vithin the jurisdiction of Judges ut Lucknow should) be pre<;ented at Lucknow and not at Allahabad.

¶21

¶22

(2)^{H0'1.'ever.ifsuch a caseispresentedatAllahab<l!d the Judgesat} Allahabad cannot summarily dismiss it only for that reason. Thecase should be returned for filing before the Judges at Lucknow and where the case has been mistakenly or inadvertently entertained at ,\1lahahaJ, 6· direction shoL!ld be m1de to the High Court Office t<> transmit the papers of the case to Lucknow,

¶23

2-L925SupCl/75

¶24

506

¶25

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶26

[1976] 1 .s.c.R.

¶27

·(3)	A case pertainingtothejurisdictionofthe JudgesatLuckno,yan.d presented beforetheJudgesatAllahabad::annotbe decidedbytbe JudgesatAllahabadinthe absenceofanordercontemplatedbv-- the second provisotoArticle 14oftheAmalgamation Order.1948~
(4)	The expression''inrespectofcases arising in such areasinOudh'' used in the first provisotoArticle 14ofthe High Court (Amalgama- tion)Order, 1948, referstolegal proceedings. including civil cases, crin1inal cases, petitionsunderArticles 226, 227 and 228oftheCon- stitution and petitionsunderArticles 132, 133 and 134 of the Constitution institutedbeforetheJudges sittingatLucknowand having their origin, in the sense explainedinthe majority judg!:nent in such areas in Oudh as the Chief Justicemaydirect.Theexpres- sion..arising in such areas in Oudh" referstothe place wherethe case originated in the sense explainedinthe majority· judgment and nottothe place sittingofthe lastcourtorauthority whose decreeor order is being challenged in the proceedings before the High Co-crt.
(5)	The Lucknow Bench havenojurisdictiontohear"\'ritpetitionNo. 750of1964 which gave riseto\Vritpetition.No. 3294of1970.
Twoap grantedby	pea1s havebeprefer~edtothisCourtonthe basisofspecial l:1ve this Court. One appeal isbycertificate.

¶28

HELD: (i) If the precise words used are plain and unambiguous, they :ire bound to be construed in their ordinary sense. The mere fact that the results of a statute may be unjust does not entitle a cowrt to refuse to give it effect. If there are hvo different interpretations of the words in an Act, the Court will adopt that \'hich is just •. reasonable and sensible rather than _that which is none of those things. If the inconvenience is an absurd inconvenience, by readir.g a_n enactment in its ordinary sense, whereas if it is read in a manner in which it is capabfe, though not in an ordinary sense, there would not be any inconvenience at all; there \vould be reason why one should not read it according to its ordinary grammatical mer.ning. \Vhere the words an; plain the Court \'OUld not n:ake nny alteration. [515A-Cl (il) The \¹ ord "or" in paragraph 14 cannot be read as "and"'. The Order describes the J-Iigh Court as the new High Court. The t\VO High Courts have -amalgama-led in the new High Coe.rt. The seat is at Altahabad or ail such other places as may be . determined. There is no permar:ence attached to Allahabad. If that were the intention of the Order, the word ••and" instead of the v-,:ord .. or". would have been used. Other places may be deterrr.ined by the Chief Justice in consultation with the Governor. It is left 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 v.hethei the seats at Allahabad as v.·ell a·3 at Lucknow will be changed. Both places may continue. Both places may be changed. Lucknow is the seat of the Government. Allahabad has aho the history that the High Court was ti.ere before the Order. Lucknow has been the principal place of Oudh. The Order aimed at giving sta~u·:> to the Oudh 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 icto 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 cut and policy is not changed. [515-A. D-G]

¶29

(iii) The reasoning of the High Court that the Chief Justice might reduce the areas in OuQh because the words .. as the Chief Justice may direct" occur immediately after words ••in such areas in Oudh" is not correct. First. the words "from time to~time" apply only to the nomination of Judges by the Chief Justice to sit at Lucknow and not to the words ··such areas in Oudh as the Chief Justice may direct''. The important v.'ords in the first proviso to paragraph 14 of the Order are "such judges of the new High Court. not less than two in number, as the Chief Justlc.e may. from time to time nominate, shall sit at Lucknow." These words indicate that the power of the Chief Justice to nominate Judges, who s!::i.11 sit at-Lucknow is· to be exercised from time to time meaning thereby that the po¥,;er can be exercised as often as may be necessary. Second, the words .. i::i

-· -'r

NASIRUDDIN v. S.T.A.T. (Ray, C.J.)

5Q7

" ~'

respect of cases arising in such areas in Oudh, as the Chief Justice may direct" occur in the collocation of words "that the Judges nominated shall sit at Lucknow in order to exercise in respect of cases arising in such areas in Oudh, as the Chief Justice 1nay direct, the jurisdiction and power for the time being vested in the new High Court." The words "as the Chief Justice may direct" mean that the Chief Justice exercises the power to direct what the areas in Oudh are for exercise of jurisdiction by Judges at Lucknow Bench. Once that power is exercised, it is exhausted. The reason is that the areas once determined should D hold good on account of certainty and to dispel problems being created from time to tin1e by increase or decrease of areas. [516B-E]

¶47

(iv) Section 14 of General Clauses Act cannot have any application because a different intention appears in paragraph 14 of the Order. 1517-D]

¶48

( v) ~fhe sum and substance as well as the spirit of the order is that under the first proviso to paragraph 14 Lucknow becomes the seat in respect of cases arising in areas in Oudh. There is no other provision except paragraph 14 in the order as to \Vhat the areas in Oudh are or will be. Historically, only the sa.me c 12 Districts continued to be comprised in Oudh. When the 0'fder came into existence in 1948, it was for the Chief Justice to direct the areas in Oudh \Vhich would be \'ithin the jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench. The direction which the Chief Justice has given once with regard to the· areas in Oudh remains unaltered. [516F-H, 517A & CJ

¶49

(vi) 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 that the Lucknow Bench would have exclusive jurisdiction in such a matter. If the cause of action arises in part within the specified areas in Oudh it would be open to the litigant who is the dominus litis to have his forum conveniens. The litigant has the right to go to a Court where part of his cause of action arises. The Court will find out in each case whether the jurisdiction of the Court is rightly attracted by the alleged cause of action. [518D-F]

¶50

¶51

CIVIL APPELLATE JUR!SDICTlON: Civil Appeals Nos. 1940-19.+J of 1972.

¶52

¶53

Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 17th December, 1971 of the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No. 3294 of 1970 and

¶54

Criminal Appeal No. 254 of 1974.

¶55

From the Judgment anli Order dated the 28th March, 1973, of the F Allahabad High Court in Criminal Revision No. 270 of 1973.

¶56

Sarjoo Prasad, R. N. Sharma, H. D. Srivastava, Hari Nath Tilhari, B. C. Saxena and C. P. Lal for the Appe!lant in C.A. Nos. 19401941/72.

¶57

F. S. Nariman, G. L. Verma, S. P. Singh, R. P. Singh, S. K. Ba;rca and Mrs. 5. Bagga for the Intervener in Allahabad Bar Association in G C.A. 1940/72.

¶58

Yogeshwar Prasad, G. N. Verma, S. P. Singh, R. P. Singh, S. K. Bagga and Mrs. S. Bagga for the Intervener in Allahabad Bar Associrrtion in C.A. 1941 /72 .

¶59

.. {

¶60

¶61

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

¶62

RAY,,C.J.-Two of these appeals are by special leave and one by certificate from the judgment dated 17 December, 1971 of the Full &nch of the High Court at Allahabad.

¶63

Il 1976] 1 s.C.R.

¶64

S1)PREME COURT REPORTS

¶65

508

¶66

¶67

Civil Appeal No. 1940 of 1972 arises out of the Writ Petition. No. 3294 of 1970. Writ Petition No. 3294 of 1970 was fileU before the Lucknow Bench of the High Court by respondents Nos. 3 to 9 for quashing the order dated 12 May, 1970 passed by the State.Transport Appellate Tribunal at Lucknow. The respondents also claimed the d!fect1on that the judgment of the High Court sitting at Lucknow dated 15 September, 1966 in Writ Petition No. 750 of 1964 is a nullity.

¶68

The facts in Writ Petition No. 3294 of 1970 arc these. Tite Regional Transport Authority, Bareilly fixed the strength of ChandausiRajghat route at 5 stage carriage permits. The appellant and the respondent No. 3 applied for the grant of permits. The Regional Trans.port Authority, Bareilly, l<Y 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,.1961to8 June, 1964.

¶69

The unsuccessful appellants filed appeals against the order. By an order dated 28 March, 1963. the State Transport Appellate Tribunal at Lucknow allowed all th<;. nine appeals and remanded the matte;· to the Regional Transport Authority, Barcilly, for reconsideration. The Regional Transport Anthority, Bareilly, by an order dated 28 April, 1964 granted five permits, one of which was granted to the respondent No. J. The appellant was-not granted a permit.

¶70

The Regional Transport Authority, Bareilly had, in the meanwhiie. on 20 February, 1963, increased the strength of the routes from 5 to 15 and invited applications. Respondents No. 4, 5 anU 7 applied for the grnnt of permits.

¶71

The appellant filed Writ Petition No. 750 of 1964' before the Judges of th,; High Court sitting at Lucknow, challenging the order of the Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow, dated 28th March, l 963 as well as tire order of the Regional Transport Authority. Bareillv dated 28 ,\pril, 1964. On 9 June, 1966 the appellant succeeded in his Writ Petition No. 750 of 1964. The orders of the Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow, dated 28 March, 1963 and the Regional Transport Authority, Barcilly, dated 28 April, 1964 were quashed and the Appellate Tribunal was directed to re-hear the appeals on merits.

¶72

On 1 November, 1965, the Regional Transport Authority, Barc:Iiy, rejected the application of the appellant for the renewal of his permit on the ground that the permit granted to him originally was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal by an order dated 28 March, 1963. The appellant preferred an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal and· succeeded on 8 January, 1968. On 17 June, 1968, the Appellate Tribunal, in pursuance of the orders of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 750 of 1964, issued notice to the 15 persons, who had lieen granted permits originally and the 9 persons, who hat! preferred appeals, regarding rehearing of the appeals. Against the said order~ tli.c respundent No. J

• ,.

....

NASIRUDD!N V. S.T.A.T. (Ray, C.J.)

509

...

•

•

filed Writ Petition No. 4213 of 1968 in the High Court at Allahabad. The writ petition was admitted and a stay order was granted. However, on 25 April, 1968, the stay order was vacated .

¶88

The Appellate Tribunal at Lucknow, pursuant to the orders in Writ Petition No. 750 of 1964, heard the appeals and directed the Regional B Transport Authority, Bareilly to grant one permanent stage carriage permit to each· of the respondents Nos. 10 to 12. Inasmuch as the appellant was granted a permit in pursuance of the order in Writ Petition No. 750 of 1964, the Appellate Tribunal did not think it necessary to pass any order in his case.

¶89

Respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 3 filed writ petition No. 3294 of 1970 in the High Court at Allahabad. One of the grounds in the c writ petition was that the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court had no jurisdiction. to entertain and decide the writ peti.tion No. 150 of 1964, because the dispute arose at Bareilly in Rohilkhand Division, which wds within the exclusive 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.

¶90

¶91

Jn Civil Appeal No. 1941 of 1972 the appellants filed writ petition No. 4 70 of 19 t 1 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 Luck· now. 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 SettleE ment Officer, Consolidation, Shahjahanpur. The respondent No. 1 \Vent 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. 4'70 of 1971. On 26 July, 197i the writ petition was listed for or\jern before a Division Ber.oh consisting of the Chief Justice of the High Court and another learned Judge sitting F at Lucknow. The Registry of the High Court at Lucknow reported that the petition related to the District of Shahjahanpur and question \vas raiszd as to the con1petncy of the writ petition bing. pr-~scntcd before the Bench sitting at Lucknow. The matter eventually came before the Full Bench.

¶92

¶93

¶94

Crimirial Appeal No. 254 of 1974 arises out of the Criminal Revi• G sion No. 270 of 1973 filed in the High Court at Allahabad. The revision- relates to the sentence under section 25 of the Arms Act passed hy the Temporary Civil & Sessions Judge, Rae Bareli. Question arose as to whether the revision should have been filed before the Lucknow Bench. Eventually the matter came before the Full Bench .

¶95

It is in this context that the following five questions were referred H for Uccision to the Full Bench :

¶96

" ( 1) Can a case falling wlthin the .iurisdiction ol the Lucknow B~nch of this Court be presented at Allahabad?

¶97

[1976] l s.c.R.

¶98

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶99

,, 510 (2) (3)	SUPREME COURT REPORTS []s.c. Can the Judges sitting at Allahabad summarily dismiss a case presentedatAllahabad pertaining to the juris- dicti_onof the Lucknow Bench? Can a case pertaining to the jurisdiction of Lucknow Bench, presented andentertaine_d_atAllahabad, be decided finally by theJul:lgess1ttmgat Allahabad, without therebemgan orderascontemplatedbythe second proviso to Article 14 of the U.P. High Court (Amalgamation) Order,1948? ·	. 1
"(4)	Whatisthe meaning of the expression "in respect of cases arising in such areas in Oudh" used in first pro· visa to Article 14 of the High Court (Amalgamation) Order,1948?Has this expression reference to the place where the case originated ortothe place of the sitting of the last Courtorauthorjty whose decreeor order is being challenged in the proceedings before the HighCourt?	c
(5) The maj "(1)	Whether this writ petition can be entertained, heard andc·ocidedby the Judges sitting at Lucknow?"' ority viewofthe Full Bench gave the following answers: A case falling within the jurisdiction of Judges at Lucknow should be presented at Lucknow and not at Allahabad.	- D
( 2 l	However,ifsuch a caseispresented at Allahabad, the Judges atAllahaba<Icannot summarily dismiss it only for that reason. The case should be returned for filingbefore the Judges at Lucknow and where the case has been mistakenly or inadvertently entertained at Allahaba<I, a direction should be made to the High Court Office to transmit the papers of the case to Lucknow.	E F
(3)	A case pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Judges at Lucknow and presented before the Judges at Allaha- bad cannot be decided by the Judges at Allahabad in the absence of an order contemplatedbythe second proviso to Article 14 of the Amalgamation Order, 1948.	G
(4)	The expression "in respect of cases arising in such areas in Oudh" usedi[lthe first proviso to Article 14 of the High Court (Amalgamation) Oider, 1948, refers to legal proceedings, including civil cases, crimi- nal 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	H

c ...

• G

NASIRUDDIN v. s.T.A.T. (Ray, C.J.)

511

•

areas in Oudh as the Chief Justice may direct. The expression "atising in such areas in Oudh" refers to the place where the case originated in the sense explained in the majority ju,:lgment and not to the place sitting of the last cou1t or authority whose decree or order is being challenged in the proceeding before the High Court.

¶116

(5) The Lucknow Bench have no jurisdiction to hear writ petition No. 750 of 1964 which gave rise to writ petition No. 3294 of 19/0."

¶117

The United Provinces High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948, hereinafter referred to as the Order, was promu!i;ated under section 229 c of the Govermnent of InC!ia Act, 1935. The Order came into effect on the appointed day, namely, 26 July, 1948. "Existing High Court" in the Order means the High Court referre'd to in section 219 of the Govermnent of India Act as L'ie High Court in Allahabad and the Chief Court in Oudh. As from the appointed day, the High Court at Allahabad and the Chief Court in Ouclh shall con§till!te one High Court by the name of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad referred to as D "the new High Court" (Paragraph 3).

¶118

The two crucial provisions are Paragraphs 7 and 141 in the Order. The High Court referred to the provisions of the Order as Articles but we have rcfcrr'*1 to the same as Paragraphs. Paragraph 7 is as follows:

¶119

¶120

"7. ('1) The new High Court shall have,, in respect of the whoie of the United Provinces, all such original, appellate and other jurisdiction as, under the law in force immediately before the appointed day, is. exercisable in respect of any part of that Province by either of the existing High Courts.

¶121

F (2) The new High Court shall also have in respect of any areas outside the Uni1Jld PrOVinces all such original, appellate and other jurisdiction as under the law in force immediately before the appointed day is exercisable in respect of that area by the High Court in Allahabad."

¶122

Paragraph 14 is as follows : • G

¶123

"14. 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 :

¶124

Provided that unless the Governor of the United Pro-, H vinces with the concurrence of the Chief Justice, otherwise directs, such judges of the new High Court, not less than two in number, as the Chief Justice, may, from time to time nominate, shall sit at Lucknow in order to exercise in respect of

¶125

[J 976] 1 ~.C.R.

¶126

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶127

512

¶128

case~ arising in such areas in Oudh, as the Chief Justice may direct, the j.urisdiction and power for the time being vested ill in the new High Court :

¶129

Provided further that the Chief Justice may in his di•· cretion order that any case or class of cases arising in the said areas shall be heard at Allahabad."

¶130

The High Court considered paragraphs 7 and 14 of the Order to mean that the new High Court has its seat at Allahabad which is the permanent scat. The reasons gi_ven by the High Court are three. First, 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 Chief 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 th~ 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" oc.:urring in the main provision of paragraph 14 of the Order mean that the v.wd "or" occurring between the words "Allahabad" and "at such other places" is to be read as "and".

¶131

The second matter decided by the High Court is that the Judge~ 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 first proviso to paragraph 14 of the Order and further that the Bench at Lucknow Bench will hear cases arising in specified Oudh are'1' as the currence of the Chief Justice. The first proviso to paragraph 14 of the Order which speaks of such areas in Oudh followed by the words ""as the Chief Justice may direct", shows that areas in Oudh ,,ill be such as will be specified by the Chief Justice. Under the first proviso to paragraph 14 of the Order all cases arising in areas in O:.idh as directed by the Chief Justice will be heard at Lucknow.

¶132

The High Court further held as follows. The first proviso to paragraph 14 of the Order consists of two parts. The first part requires that as least two Judges will sit at Lucknow. The insistance on Luck·· now as a pluce of sitting under the first proviso overrides the discretion of the Chief Justice to appoint any other place with the approval of the Governor because until the ,Governor otherwise directs with the concurrence of the Chief Justice, Lucknow will remain a place of sitting. The second part of the first proviso t.o paragraph 14 o.f tbe Order, namely, that Judges sitting at Lucknow shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of cases arising in such Oudh areas, specifies the work which the Judges at Lucknow will :lo, which can be described as amounting in substance to a statutory allocation of the categoiy oi

•

•

• t

NASIRUD!JIN v. s.T.A.T. (Ray, C.J.)

¶145

513

¶146

cases mentioned there to the Judges at Lucknow. Such allocation necessarily implies that other Judges will not do that class of work, unless it is also expressly allocated to them. ·

¶147

• The third matter decided by the High Court is the interpretation oi the second proviso to paragraph 14 of the Order, which confers power on the Chiel. Justice in his discretion to order that any case or class of IB cases arisin• in the said areas shal! be heard at Allahabad. The Hii:h Court exprssro these views. This provisq shows that Judges at Lucknow Bench arc alone competent to hear cases arising in the specified Oudh areas and that the order of the Chief Justice under the _,. second proviso alone enables such cases being heard at Allahabad. The· second proviso to paragraph 14 of the O;:der is held by the High Court to mean that the ChieCJustice has power not only to make an order in respect of cases which have been filcl at and are pending at Lucknow but also cases which have not yet been filed or which may oe filed in future at Lucknow.

¶148

The meaning of the wor\l "heard" in the second proviso to paragraph 14 of the Order is not confined to the actual hearing of cases but will include the precetiing stages of 1hc institution of a case and of it,; being entertained by the High Court. lf 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 ins.tituted because they arise in Oudh areas. The second proviso means that case; covered by the direction of the Chief _Justice cannof be instituted at Lucknow but only at Allahaba\l for being heard there.

¶149

¶150

The second proviso to paragraph 14 of the Order qualifies th: 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 iF where the Chief Justice orders that anv such case or class of cases shall be heard 'it Allahabad. On this reasoning the High Court has held . that paragraph 14 of the Order first provides for the place of sitting of the Judges and second specifies the category of cases which will be heard by them.

¶151

The High Court also said as follows. The jurisdiction defined by G paragraph 7 of the Order vests in the entire-body of Judges. It is the • jurisdiction enjoyed by every Judge of the High Court and extends to all cases throughout the territories of that State. Where that jurisdiction will be exercised is a matter to be determined under paragraph 14 of the Order. It may be exercised at Allahabad or it may be exercised at Lucknow or at any other place appointed by the Chief Justke nndcr paragraph 14. The Judges at Lucknow hear cases arising 1n such H areas in Oudh as the Chief Justice l:lirects. It is open to the Chid Justice to reduce the areas from time to time. Cases arising in the areas so removed can no longer he heard at Lucknow. They will be heard at Allahabad or at any other place appointed under the main pro-

¶152

(1976] 1 S.C.R.

¶153

SUPREr.tE COURT REPORTS

¶154

514

¶155

vision of paragraph 14'. A stage may be reached in the process of reduction where only one area qf Oudh alone may remain with the Judges sitting at Lucknow. There is also power in the Chief Ju~li<:<:, by virtue of second proviso. to increase by order that classes of cases orising in Oudh areas shall be heard at Allahabad. Finally, the arrange. ment th.:t some Judges must sit at Lucknow may be abolished by the Governor with the concurrence of the Chief Justice. ·The fourth question on which the High C.qurt expressed its opinion is on the meaning of "cases arising in such areas in Oudh". The High. Court expressed the following views. A distinction arises . between civil and criminal cases on the or.e hand and writ petitions under Article 226 on the other. The contention based on Article 225 that Lucknow Bench will not have jurisdiction under Article 226 is wrong because the · jurisdiction of the High Court is not only the jurisdiction exercisable before the Constitution came into force but also the jurisdiction which could be· conferred on the High Court in future .. The Lucknow Bench, therefore, exercises jurisdiction un\ler Article 226 ..

¶156

Though the Lucknow Bench can exercise jurisdiction under Articles 226, 227 and 228, there is limitation on such jurisdiction as far as the Lucknow Bench is conccrncct. 1h" Lucknow Bench will have juris<liction under Article 226 only in cases where the right of the petitim:er arose first within the Oudh areas. Where an original order pasocd outside the Oudh areas has been reversed or modified or confirmed at a place within the Ou\lh areas it is not the place where the ultimate or the appellate order is passed that will attract jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench. Jn most cases where an appeal or revision will lie to the Siate Government, the order will be inade at Lucknow. In all such ca,cs, if it be held that the place where a case can be said to arise is where tl:e ultimate or appellate order is passed by the authority, the Judges at Luekno\v would then have jurisdiction even though the controversy originally arose and the original order was made by an authority outside the specified Oulih areas. In all cases a writ petition filed in the H!gh 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 Hi/ili Court. The right of the petitioner is tho right wbich first arose and if the place where the ri11.ht first arose will be within the Oudh areas then the Lucknow Bench will have jurisdiction.

•

**·'.f;**

-..-

G •

With regard to the civil and criminal cases, the High Court said that the Lucknow Bench would have _jurisdiction in a civil case where - tk c_au5' of action wholly or in part arose •. In a criminal case the Lucknow Bench would have jurb\liction where the offence has been com:ni ttd.

¶170

The conclusion as well as the reasoning of the High Court that the p;:rmanent seat of the High Court is at Allahabad is not quite sound. The Order states that the High Court shall sit as the new High Court and the Judges and Division Bench thereof shall sit at Allahabad or at

¶171

¶172

NASIRUDDIN v. s.T.A.T. (Ray, C.J.)

515

•

'y. -):

such other places in the United Provinces as the Ghief Justice may, with the approval of the Governor of the United ~rovinces, appoint. The word .. or'' cannot be read as "and". If the precise words used are plain and unambiguous, they are bounli to Qe construed in their ordinary sense. The mere fact that the results of a statute may be un.1ust does not entitle a court to refuse to give it effect. If there are two different interpretations of the words in an Act, the Court will adopt that which is just, reasonable and sensible rather than that which is none of those things. If the il}.c.onvenience is an absurd inconvenier..cc, by reading an enactment in its C?rdinary sense, whereas if it is read in a manner in which it is capable, though not in an ordinary sense, there would not be any inconvenience at all; there would be reason why one should not read it according to its ordinary grammatical meaning. Where the words are plain the Court would not make any alteration.

¶183

The a(guments which were presented at the Bar on behalf of the Beit Association at Allahabad as well as the Bar Association at Lucknow suggested that those views can be described to be protagonists of Allahabad or of Lucknow on the one hand and antagonists to Allahabad er Lucknow on the other. The construction is to be dispassionate without any leaning eitber in favour or against either of the pfaccs mentioned in the Order.

¶184

The Order describes the High Court as the new High Court. The

¶185

· two High Courts have amalgamated in the new High Court. The seat is at Allahabad or at such other places as may be determined. There is no permanence attached to Allahabad. If that were the intention ef

¶186

E the Order. the word "and" instead of the word "or" would have b..:!en used. Other places may be detennined by the Chief Justice in consultation with the Governor. It is left to prud"11ce of the authorities mentioned as to what other places should be determineli. 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.

¶187

F Lucknow is the seat of the Government. Allahabad has also the his-

¶188

' tory that the High Court was there before the Order. Lucknow has been the principal place of Oudh. The Order aimed at giving &talus to the Oudh 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 real:! into the Order. One can only say that it is the wish and hope that both

¶189

• G Allahabad and Lucknow will be the two important seats so that history is not wiped out and policy is not changed.

¶190

The couclusion of the High Court that the first proviso to paragraph l .+ 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 Cnief J usticc from time to time of not less than two Judges sitting at H · Lucknow. An argument was advanced on behalf of the Bar Association at Allahabad that the worl:ls "not less than two in number" indicate that the' Order did not contemplate the existence of a Division Bench. The words "from time to time" and "not less than two hr

¶191

[1976] l S.C.R.

¶192

.516

¶193

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶194

.number" indicate the minimum as two and that more than two Judge~ may be there. The words "from time to time" suggest not only that .Judges may come from Allahabad to Lucknow or vice versa but also that the number may be increased or decreased according to exigen.cies. The only limitation on the number is that it shall not b~ less than two.

¶195

The High Court held that the Chief Justice might reduce the are:.is jn Oudh because the words "as the Chief Justice may direct" occur immediatc!Y alter the words "in such areas in Oudh". This reason is fallacious. First, the words "from time to time" apply only to the nomination of Judges by the Chief Justice to sit at Lucknow and not Jo the words "such areas in Oudh as the Chief Justice may direct". The important words in the first proviso to paragraph 14 of the Order .are "such Judges of the new High Court, not less than two in number, as the Chief Justice, may, from time to time nominate, shall sit at Lucknow". These words itidicate that the power of the Chief Justice to nominate Judges, who shall sit at Lucknow, is to be exercised from time to time meaning there.by that the power can be exercised as often as may be necessary. Second. the words "in respect of cases arising in such areas in Oudh, as the Chief Justice may direct" occur in tho "collocation of words "that the Judges nominated shall sit at Lucknow in order to exercise in respect of cases arising in such areas in Oudh, as the Chief Justice may direct, the jurisdiction and power for tile time _being vested in the new High Court". The words "as the Chief Justice may direct" mean that the Chief Justice exercises the power ta direct what the areas in Oudh are for exercise of jurisdiction by Judges at Lucknow Bench. Once that power is exercised. it is exhausted. The reason is that the areas once determined should hold .good on account of certainty and to dispel problems being created from time to time by increase or decrease of areas.

¶196

The sum and substance as well as the spirit of the Order is that under the·first proviso to paragraph 14 Lucknow becomes the seat in respect of cases arising in areas in Oudh. There is no other provision except paragraph 14 in the Order as to what the areas in Oudh arc or will be. Historically, the territories with J 2 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 Govi;rn- ment of India order dated 4 February. 1856. (See : Laws of nonRegulations Provinces 1863 by Lon.l G. Campell, Judicial Commissioner, Oudh). In 1925 Oudh Courts Act was passed by the Uttar Pradesh Lceislaturc. The Chief Court of Oudh with one Chief Justice and four Puisne Judges was established replacing the Judicial Commissioner's Court. In 1937 bv 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 Ju'dpes as may ·be appointed under the Government of India Act, 1935. Later, two more additional Judges were nopo;nted. Jn th;s background the

~ ;,,. ->-:

.,..

G •

NASJRUDDIN v. s:r.A.T. (Ray, C.J.)

517

' •

•

Order of 1948 came into existeJJ£e and the new High Conrt was established with its seats at Allahabad and Lucknow. It, therefore" follows that when the Order cam_e into existence, it was for the Chief Justice to direct the areas in Oudh, which would be within the jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench.

"' 'r, -'+

"" D

Under paragraph 7 of the Order, the new High Court has jurisdiction in respect of whole of the United Provinces exercisable in respect of any part of that p~civ.ince by. either of the existing High Court. Paragraph 14 of the Order deals with the seats of the High Court at Allahabad and Lucknow. It is only the first proviso to paragraph 14· of the Order which states that unless the Governor of the United Provinces with the concurrence of the Chief Justice, otherwise directs,. not less than two Judges shall sit at Lucknow in order to exercise in respect of cases arising il1 such areas in Oudh, the jurisdiction and power vested in the new High Court. The first proviso to paragraph 14 of the Orders specifies the instrumentality through which the jurisdiction vested in the new High Court will be exercised in respect of cases arising in Oudh. The direction which the Chief Justice · has given once with regard to the areas in Oudh remains unaltered.

¶222

•

¶223

•

¶224

Section 14 of the General Clauses Ac.t states that where by any Act any power is conferred then unless a different intention appears, the power may be exercised from time to time as occasion requires. F In the presenl case section 14 of General Clauses Act cannot have any application because a different intention appears in paragraph 14 of the Order. The words "from time to time" occur in the first part of the first proviso to paragraph 14 of the Order, in reJoation to the power of the Chief Justice to nominate Judges of the Lucknow Bench from G time to time. The secon<j .part of the first proviso to paragraph 14 of the Order which speaks of cases arising in such areas in Oudh as the Chief Justice may direct do not attract the application of the words '"from time to time." The second part of the first proviso to paragraph 14 shows that such areas in Oudh as the Chief Justice m.ay direct are H areas in respect of which once such direction is givein, there is no intention in the Order to exercise such power of direction from time to time.

[1976] 1 s.c.R.

·518

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶229

The condusion of the High Court that the areas in Oudh cQuld be jncrcased L'f decreased by the Chief Justice from time to time is set aside. It is only if Lucknow will ever cease to be a seat of the High Court when the Governor of the Uttar Pradesh with 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.

¶230

¶231

·~

¶232

B '

¶233

¶234

The meaning of the expression "in respect of cases arising in sue h 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 rc\isional or appellate stag~ were passed by an authority within an arect in Oudh then in such cases the Lucknow Bench would not have an: jurisdiction. The factor which weighed heavily with the High Cou;r 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 practically aU writ petitions would arise at Lucknow.

,• ·<-

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 jf 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 origiilal order was in favour of the person applying for a writ. In such case an adverse appellate order might be the c.ause of action. The expression "cause of action is well-known. If the cause of action arises wholly or in part at a pface within the specified Oudh areas, the Lucknow Bench will have jurisdiction. If the cause of action arises wholly wit)li\1 the specified Oudh areas, it is indisputable that the Lucknow Bench would have exclusive jurisdiction in such a matter. If the cause of action arises in part within the specified areas in Oudh it would be open to the litigant who is the dominus litis to have his forum conveniens. The litigant has the right to go to a Court where part of his cause of action arises. fo such cases, it is incorrect to say that the litigant chooses any particular Court. The choice is by reason of the

•

:-!ASIRUDDIN v. s.T.A.T. (Ray, C.J.)

519

, ..

") ~·

•

' ~·

A jurisdiction of the Court being attracted by part of cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of the Court. Similarly, if the cause of action can be said to have arisen part within specified are>as in oudh and part outside the specified Oudh areas, the litigant will have the choice to i.1stitute proceedings either oat Allahabad or Lucknow. The Court will find out in each case whether the jurisdiction of the Court B is rightly attracted by the alleged cause of action.

¶252

To sum up. Our conclusions are as follows. First, there is no permanent seat of the High Court at Allahabad. The seats at Allahabad and at Lucknow may be changed in accordance with the provisions of the Order. Second, the Chief Justice of the High Court has no power to increase or decrease tile areas .in Oudh from time to time. c The areas in Oudh have been determined on.ce by the Chief Justice and, therefore, there is no scope for changing the areas. Third, the Chief Justice has power unUer the second proviso to paragraph 14 of the Order to direct in his discretion that any case 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 qy the High Court that the word "heard" confers powers on D 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 prnviso to paragraph 14 of the Order be directed to be heard at Allahabad. Fourth, the expression "causo E 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 F 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 where the offence has been committed or otherwise as provided in the Criminal Procedure .Code. G That will attract the jurisdiction of the Court at Allahabad or Lucknow. In some cases depending on the facts antl the provision regardjng jurisdiction, it may arise in either place.

¶253

¶254

Applications under 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.

¶255

¶256

520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1976] I s.C.R. The answers given by the High Court to the first three questions are correct save as modified by our conclusions aforesaid. The answer given by the High Court to the fourth question is set aside. 'The meaning of cases arising in Oudh areas will be found out by apprPpriate courts in the light of this judgment. Ttc answer to the fifth question is discharged. The matters are sen! ba.::t to the High Court for disposal in accordance with this judgmer;•. Parties will pay and bear their own costs. V.M:K. Appeal partly allowed. ·•

¶257

• ' t

Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rikhu Dev, Chela Bawa Harjug Dass versus Som Dass (Deceased) through His Chela Shiamdass

Bapubhai Mohanbhai versus Mahila Sahakari Udyog Mandir

Carew and Company Ltd. versus Union of India

Visakhapatnam Municipality versus Kandregula Nukaraju & Ors.

Gajanan Dattatraya versus Sherbanu Hosang Patel & Ors.

State of Punjab and Anr. versus Kirpal Singh Bhatia & Ors. .