Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 15
PETITIONER:
NASIRUDDIN
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DATE OF JUDGMENT29/08/1975
BENCH:
RAY, A.N. (CJ)
BENCH:
RAY, A.N. (CJ)
MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA
CITATION:
1976 AIR 331 1976 SCR (1) 505
1975 SCC (2) 671
CITATOR INFO :
D 1983 SC 46 (21)
ACT:
United Provinces High Courts (Amalgamation) Order,
1948, Paragraphs 7 and 14-Seat of the High Court-Allahabad,
if the permanent seat of High Court-Chief Justice, if can
reduce the areas in Oudh.
Interpretation of Statutes-Plain and unambiguous words,
when could be interpreted in their ordinary sense.
HEADNOTE:
Paragraph 7 of the United Provinces High Courts
(Amalgamation) Order, 1948, provides that (1) The new High
Court shall have, in respect of the whole 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 Court; (2) The
new 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 immediately
before the appointed day is exercisable in respect of that
area by the High Court in Allahabad.
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 United Provinces
as the Chief Justice may, with the approval of the Governor
of the United Provinces, appoint. The first proviso to this
paragraph provides that unless the Governor of the United
Provinces 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 cases arising in such areas in oudh,
as the Chief Justice may direct, the jurisdiction and power
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 of cases
arising in the said areas shall be heard at Allahabad.
Respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 3 filed writ
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 15
petition No. 3294 of 1970 in the High Court at Allahabad.
One of the grounds in the writ petition was that the Lucknow
Bench of the Allahabad High Court had no jurisdiction to
entertain and decide the writ petition No 750 of 1964 filed
by the appellant, because the dispute arose at Bareilly in
Rohilkhand Division, which was within in 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.
Writ Petition No. 470 of 1971 filed in the High Court
at Lucknow and Criminal Revision No. 270 of 1973 filed in
the High Court at Allahabad were also referred to the Full
Bench.
Five questions were referred for decision to the Full
Bench. The majority View of the Full Bench gave the
following answers:
(1) A case falling within the jurisdiction of
Judges at Lucknow should be presented at
Lucknow and not at Allahabad.
(2) However. if such a case is presented at
Allahabad the Judges at Allahabad cannot
summarily dismiss it only for that reason.
The case should be returned for filing before
the Judges at Lucknow and where the case has
been mistakenly or inadvertently entertained
at Allahabad a direction should be made to
the High Court Office to transmit the papers
of the case to Lucknow.
506
(3) 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 of the Amalgamation Order, 1948.
(4) The expression "in respect of cases arising
in such areas in Oudh" used in the first
proviso to Article 14 of the High Court
(Amalgamation) Order, 1948, 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 "arising in such areas
in oudh " refers to the place where the case
originated in the sense explained in the
majority judgment and not to the place
sitting of the last court or authority whose
decree or order is being challenged in the
proceedings before the High Court.
(5) The Lucknow Bench have no jurisdiction to
hear writ petition No. 750 of 1964 which have
rise to writ petition No. 3294 of 1970.
Two appeals have been preferred to this Court on the
basis of special leave granted by this Court one appeal is
by certificate.
^
HELD: (i) If the precise words used are plain and
unambiguous, they are bound to be construed in their
ordinary sense. The mere fact that the results of a statute
may be unjust does not entitle a Court to refuse to give it
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 15
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 inconvenience is an absurd
inconvenience, by reading an enactment in its ordinary
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. [515A-C]
(ii) The word "or" in paragraph 14 cannot be read as
"and". The Order describes the High Court as the new High
Court. The 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 permanance attached to
Allahabad. If that were the intention of the order, the word
"and instead of the word "or" would have been used. Other
places may be determined 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 whether
the seats at Allahabad as well as at Lucknow will be
changed. Both places may continue. Both places may be
changed. Lucknow is the seat of the Government. Allahabad
has also the history that the High Court was there before
the Order. Lucknow has been the principal place of oudh. The
order aimed at giving status 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 into 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 out and
policy is not changed. [515-A, D-G]
(iii) The unreasoning of the High Court that the Chief
Justice might reduce the areas in oudh 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 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 indicate that
the power of the Chief Justice to nominate Judges, who shall
sit at Lucknow is to be exercised from time to time meaning
thereby that the power can be exercised as often as may be
necessary. Second, the words "in
507
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 may 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 exercise 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 hold good on account of certainty and
to dispel problems being created from time to time by
increase or decrease of areas. [516B-E]
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 15
(iv) Section 14 of General Clauses Act cannot have any
application because a different intention appears in
paragraph 14 of the Order. [517-D]
(v) 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 ares in Oudh are or will be.
Historically, only the same 12 Districts continued to be
comprised in Oudh. When the Order came into existence in
1948, it was for the Chief Justice to direct the areas in
Oudh which would be within 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 & C]
(vi) If the cause of action arise wholly or in part at
a place within the specified Oudh areas, the Lucknow Bench
will have jurisdiction. If the cause of actions arises
wholly within the specified Oudh areas, it is indisputable
that the Lucknow Bench would have exclusive jurisdiction in
a 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]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 1940-
1941 of 1972.
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
Criminal Appeal No. 254 of 1974.
From the Judgment and order dated the 28th March, 1973,
of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Revision No. 270 of
1973.
Sarjoo Prasad, R.N. Sharma, H.D. Srivastava, Hari Nath
Tihari, B.C. Saxena and C.P. Lal for the Appellant in C.A.
Nos. 1940-1941/72.
F.S. Nariman, G.L. Verma, S.P. Singh, R.P. Singh, S.K.
Bagga and Mrs. S. Bagga for the Intervener in Allahabad Bar
Association in C.A. 1940/72.
Yogeshwar Prasad, G.N. Verma, S.P. Singh, R.P. Singh,
S.K. Bagga and Mrs. S. Bagga for the Intervener in Allahabad
Bar Association in C.A. 1941/72.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
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 Bench of the High Court at Allahabad.
508
Civil Appeal No. 1940 of 1972 arises out of the Writ
Petition No. 3294 of 1970. Writ Petition No. 3294 of 1970
was filed before the Lucnow 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 direction that the
judgment of the High Court sitting at Lucknow dated 15
September, 1966 in Writ Petition No. 750 of 1964 is a
nullity.
The facts in Writ Petition No. 3294 of 1970 are these.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 15
The Regional Transport Authority, Bareilly fixed the
strength of Chandausi-Rajghat route at 5 stage carriage
permits. The appellant and the respondent No. 3 applied for
grant of permits. The Regional Transport Authority,
Bareilly, by 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, 1961 to 8 June 1964.
The unsuccessful appellants filed appeals against the
order. By an order dated 28 March, 1963, the State Transport
Appellate Tribunal at Lucknow allowed all the nine appeals
and remanded the matter to the Regional Transport Authority,
Bareilly, for reconsideration. The Regional Transport
Authority, Bareilly, by an order dated 28 April, 1964
granted five permits, one of which was granted to the
respondent No. 1. The appellant was not granted a permit.
The Regional Transport Authority, Bareilly had, in the
meanwhile, 20 February, 1963, increased the strength of the
routes from 5 to 15 and invited applications. Respondents
No. 4, 5 and 7 applied for the grant of permits.
The appellant filed Writ Petition No. 750 of 1964
before the Judges of the High Court sitting at Lucknow,
challenging the order of the Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow,
dated 28th March, 1963 as well as the order of the Regional
Transport Authority, Bareilly dated 28 April, 1964. On 9
June 1966 the appellant succeeded in his Writ Petition No.
750 of 1964. The order of the Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow,
dated 28 March, 1963 and the Regional Transport Authority,
Bareilly, dated 28 April, 1964 were quashed and the
Appellate Tribunal was directed to re-hear the appeals on
merits.
On 1 November, 1965, the Regional Transport Authority,
Bareilly, 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 been granted
permits originally and the 9 persons, who had preferred
appeals, regarding rehearing of the appeals. Against the
said order, the respondent No. 3
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.
The Appellate Tribunal at Lucknow, pursuant to the
orders in Writ Petition No. 750 of 1964, heard the appeals
and directed the Regional 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.
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 writ petition was that the Lucknow
Bench of the Allahabad High Court had no jurisdiction to
entertain and decide the writ petition No. 750 of 1964,
because the dispute arose at Bareilly in Rohilkhand
Division, which was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Allahabad High Court, sitting at Allahabad, and it had
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 15
nothing to do with the Oudh territory. The matter was
referred to the Full Bench.
In Civil Appeal No. 1941 of 1972 the appellants filed
writ petition No. 470 of 1971 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 Lucknow.
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 Settlement Officer, Consolidation,
Shahjahanpur. The respondent No. 1 to went 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. 4170 of 1971. On 26
July, 1971 the writ petition was listed for orders before a
Division Bench consisting of the Chief Justice of the High
Court and another learned Judge sitting at Lucknow. The
Registry of the High Court at Lucknow reported that the
petition related to the District of Shahjahanpur and
question was raised as to the competency of the writ
petition being presented before the Bench sitting at
Lucknow. The matter eventually came before the Full Bench.
Criminal Appeal No. 254 of 1974 arises out of the
Criminal Revision 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 by 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.
It is in this context that the following five questions
were referred for decision to the Full Bench :
"(1) Can a case falling within the jurisdiction of
the Lucknow Bench of this Court be presented
at Allahabad ?
510
(2) Can the Judges sitting at Allahabad summarily
dismiss a case presented at Allahabad
pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Lucknow
Bench ?
(3) Can a case pertaining to the jurisdiction of
Lucknow Bench, presented and entertained at
Allahabad, be decided finally by the Judges
sitting at Allahabad, without there being an
order as contemplated by the second proviso
to Article 14 of the U.P. High Court
(Amalgamation) order, 1948 ?
"(4) What is the meaning of the expression "in
respect of cases arising in such areas in
oudh" used in first proviso to Article 14 of
the High Court (Amalgamation) order, 1948 ?
Has this expression reference to the place
where the case originated or to the place of
the sitting of the last Court of authority
whose decree or order is being challenged in
the proceedings before the High Court ?
(5) Whether this writ petition can be
entertained, heard and decided by the Judges
sitting at Lucknow ?
The majority view of the Full Bench gave the following
answers:-
"(1) A case falling within the jurisdiction of
Judges at Lucknow should be presented at
Lucknow and not at Allahabad.
(2) However, if such a case is presented at
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 15
Allahabad, the Judges at Allahabad cannot
summarily dismiss it only for that reason.
The case should be returned for filing before
the Judges at Lucknow and where the case has
been mistakenly or inadvertently entertained
at Allahabad, a direction should be made to
the High Court office to transmit the papers
of the case to Lucknow.
(3) A case pertaining to the jurisdiction of the
Judges at Lucknow and presented before the
Judges at Allahbad cannot be decided by the
Judges at Allahabad in the absence of an
order contemplated by the second proviso to
Article 14 of the Amalgamation order, 1948.
(4) The expression "in respect of cases arising
in such areas in oudh" used in the first
proviso to Article 14 of the High Court
(Amalgamation) order, 1948, 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
511
areas in oudh as the Chief Justice may
direct. The expression "arising in such areas
in oudh" refers to the place where the case
originated in the sense explained in the
majority judgment and not to the place
sitting of the last court or authority whose
decree or order is being challenged in the
proceeding before the High Court.
(5) The Lucknow Bench have no jurisdiction to
hear writ petition No. 750 of 1964 which gave
rise to writ petition No. 3294 of 1970."
The United Provinces High Courts (Amalgamation) order,
1948, hereinafter referred to as the order, was promulgated
under section 229 of the Government of India 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 referred to in Section 219 of the Government of
India Act as the 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 Oudh shall constitute one
High Court by the name of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad referred to as "the new High Court" (Paragraph 3).
The two crucial provisions are Paragraphs 7 and 14 in
the order. The High Court referred to the provisions of the
order as Articles but we have referred to the same as
Paragraphs. Paragraph 7 is as follows :
"7. (1) The new High Court shall have, in respect
of the whole 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.
(2) The new High Court shall also have in respect
of any areas outside 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 that area by the High Court
in Allahabad."
Paragraph 14 is as follows:
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 15
"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 :
Provided that unless the Governor of the United
Provinces 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
512
cases arising in such areas in oudh, as the Chief
Justice may direct, the jurisdiction and power for the
time being vested in the new High Court :
Provided further that the Chief Justice may in his
discretion order that any case or class of cases
arising in the said areas shall be heard at Allahabad."
The High Court considered paragraphs 7 and 14 of the
Orders to mean that the new High Court has its seat at
Allahabad which is the permanent seat. The reasons given 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 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 the 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" occurring in the main provision of
paragraph 14 of the order mean that the word "or" occurring
between the words "Allahabad" and "at such other places" is
to be read as "and".
The second matter decided by the High Court is that the
Judges 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 list proviso to paragraph
14 of the order and further that the Bench, at Lucknow Bench
will hear cases arising in specified Oudh areas as the
currence of the Chief Justice. The first proviso to
paragraph 11 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 will 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 Oudh as
directed be the Chief Justice will be heard at Lucknow.
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 insistence on Lucknow as a place 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 to paragraph 14 of the 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 do, which can be described as
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 15
amounting in substance to a statutory allocation of the
category of
513
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.
The third matter decided by the High Court is the
interpretation of 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 cases arising in
the said areas shall be heard at Allahabad. The High Court
expressed these views. This proviso shows that Judges a
Lucknow Bench are 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 order is held by the High Court to mean that the
Chief Justice has power not only to make a order in respect
of cases which have been filed at and are pending a Lucknow
but also cases which have not yet been filed or which may be
filed in future at Lucknow.
The meaning of the would "heard" in the second proviso
to paragraph 14 of the order is not confined to the actual
hearing of cases but will include the proceeding stages of
the institution of a case and of its, being entertained by
the High Court. If 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 instituted because they arise in
Oudh areas. The second proviso means that cases covered by
the direction of the Chief Justice cannot be instituted at
Lucknow but only at Allahabad for being heard there.
The second proviso to paragraph 14 of the order
qualifies the 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 where the Chief Justice orders that any such
case or class of cases shall be heard at Allahabad. On this
reasoning the High Court has 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.
The High Court also said as follows. The jurisdiction
defined by 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 Justice under paragraph 14. The Judges at Lucknow hear
cases arising in such areas in Oudh as the Chief Justice
directs. It is open to the Chief Justice to reduce the areas
from time to time. Cases arising in the areas so removed can
no longer be heard at Lucknow. They will be heard at
Allahabad or at any other place appointed under the main
pro-
514
vision of paragraph 14. A stage may be reached in the
process of reduction where only one area of Oudh alone may
remain with the Judges sitting at Lucknow. There is also
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 15
power in the Chief Justice, by virtue of second proviso, to
increase by order that classes of cases arising in Oudh
areas shall be heard at Allahabad. Finally, the arrangement
that 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 Court 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 one 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 under Article 226.
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 concerned. The
Lucknow Bench will have jurisdiction under Article 226 only
in cases where the right of the petitioner arose first
within the oudh areas. Where an original order passed
outside the oudh areas has been reversed or modified or
confirmed at a place within the Oudh areas it is not the
place where the ultimate or the appellate order is passed
that will attract jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench. In most
cases where an appeal or revision will lie to the State
Government, the order will be made at Lucknow. In all such
cases, if it be held that the place where a case can be said
to arise is where the ultimate or appellate order is passed
by the authority, the Judges at Lucknow would then have
jurisdiction even though the controversy originally arose
and the original order was made by an authority outside the
specified Oudh areas. In all cases a writ petition filed in
the High 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
High Court. The right of the petitioner is the right which
first arose and if the place where the right first arose
will be within the Oudh areas then the Lucknow Bench will
have jurisdiction.
With regard to the civil and criminal cases, the High
Court said that the Lucknow Bench would have jurisdiction in
a civil case where the cause of action wholly or in part
arose. In a criminal case the Lucknow Bench would have
jurisdiction where the offence has been committed.
The conclusion as well as the reasoning of the High
Court that the permanent 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
515
such other places in the United Provinces as the Chief
Justice may, with the approval of the Governor of the United
Provinces, appoint. The word "or" cannot be read as "and".
If the precise words used are plain and unambiguous, they
are bound to be construed in their ordinary sense. The mere
fact that the results of a statute may be unjust 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 15
inconvenience is an absurd inconvenience, by reading an
enactment in its ordinary 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.
The arguments which were presented at the Bar on behalf
of the Bar 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 or Lucknow on the
other. The construction is to be dispassionate without any
leaning either in favour or against either of the places
mentioned in the Order.
The order describes the High Court as the new High
Court. The 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 of the Order, the word
"and" instead of the word "or" would have been used. Other
places may be determined 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 whether
the seats at Allahabad as well as at Lucknow will be
changed. Both places may continue. Both places may be
changed. Lucknow is the seat of the Government. Allahabad
has also the history that the High Court was there before
the order. Lucknow has been the principal place of oudh. The
order aimed at giving status to the 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
into 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 out and policy
is not changed.
The conclusion of the High Court that the first proviso
to paragraph 14 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 Chief Justice from time
to time of not less than two Judges sitting at Lucknow. An
argument was advanced on behalf of the Bar Association at
Allahabad that the words "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 in
516
number" indicate the minimum as two and that more than two
Judges 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 exigencies. The only limitation on
the number is that it shall not be less than two.
The High Court held that the Chief Justice might reduce
the areas in Oudh because the words "as the Chief Justice
may direct" occur immediately after 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 to 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 15
two in number, as the Chief Justice, may, from time to time
nominate, shall sit at Lucknow". These words indicate that
the power of the Chief Justice to nominate Judges, who shall
sit at Lucknow, is to be exercised from time to time meaning
thereby 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 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 may
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 hold good on account of certainty and to
dispel problems being created from time to time by increase
or decrease of areas.
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
11 in the order as to what the areas in oudh are or will be.
Historically, the territories with 12 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 Government of India order dated
4 February 1856. (See: Laws of non-Regulations Provinces
1863 by Lord G. Campell, Judicial Commissioner oudh). In 19
5 oudh Courts Act was passed by the Uttar Pradesh
Legislature. The Chief Court (If oudh with only Chief
Justice and four Puisne Judges was established replacing the
Judicial Commissioners Court. In 1937 by 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 Judges as may be appointed under the
Government of India Act, 1935. Later, two more additional
Judges were appointed. In this background the
517
Order of 1948 came into existence and the new High Court was
established with its seats at Allahabad and Lucknow. It,
therefore, follows that when the order came into existence,
it was for the Chief Justice to direct the areas in oudh,
which would be within the jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench.
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 province 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 in
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.
Section 14 of the General Clauses Act states that where
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 15
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. In the present 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 relation to
the power of the Chief Justice to nominate Judges of the
Lucknow Bench from time to time. The second 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 may direct are areas in respect of which once such
direction is given, there is no intention in the order to
exercise such power of direction from time to time.
518
The conclusion of the High Court that the areas in oudh
could be increased or 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.
The meaning of the expression "in respect of cases
arising in such 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 revisional or
appellate stage were passed by an authority within an area
in oudh then in such cases the Lucknow Bench would not have
any jurisdiction. The factor which weighed heavily with the
High Court 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 all 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 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
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 15
cause of action arises. In such cases, it is incorrect to
say that the litigant chooses any particular Court. The
choice is by reason of the
519
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 areas in oudh and part outside the
specified oudh areas, the litigant will have the choice to
institute proceedings either at Allahabad or Lucknow. The
Court will find out in each case whether the jurisdiction of
the Court rightly attracted by the alleged cause of action.
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 the areas in oudh from time to time. The areas in
oudh have been determined once by the Chief Justice and,
therefore, there is no scope for changing the areas. Third.
the Chief Justice has power under 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 by
the High Court that the word "heard" confers powers on 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 proviso to paragraph 14 of the order he directed
to be heard at Allahabad. Fourth, the expression "cause 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 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. 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.
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.
520
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 appropriate courts in the light
of this judgment.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 15
The answer to the fifth question is discharged. The
matters are sent back to the High Court for disposal in
accordance with this judgment.
Parties will Pay and bear their own costs.
V.M.K. Appeal partly allowed.
521