BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT 

CORAM 

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA 

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU 

AND 

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL 

DATED: 04/07/2012 

W.P.(MD)No.5709 of 2011 

and 

M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 

B.Stalin

.. Petitioner 

Vs. 

1.The Registrar, Supreme Court of India, Tilak Marg, New Delhi-110 001.

2.The Registrar (General), Madras High Court, Chennai-104.

3.The Joint Registrar-cum-Private Secretary to the Hon'ble Chief Justice, Madras High Court, Chennai-104.

4.The Registrar (Judicial), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai-23.

.. Respondents

Head Note:- 

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Territorial Jurisdiction - Principal seat and the Bench seat - Cause of Action - Issue relating to want of jurisdiction can be raised only before the next appellate forum, (i.e., either before the division bench or before the Supreme Court as the case may be). Such orders cannot be attacked collaterally that too by third parties to the litigation.

This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the second and third respondents not to pass, number or list writ petitions, writ appeals and habeas corpus writ petitions even if the respondents are from Delhi or Chennai falling within the Madurai Bench territorial jurisdiction / part of falling within Madurai jurisdiction / cause of action and when the petitioner's address is within the Madurai Bench jurisdiction irrespective of the respondents' addresses, at the Principal Seat, Chennai and to further transfer all pending writ petitions, writ appeals and habeas corpus writ petitions filed at the Principal Seat on or after 24.07.2004 falling within the Madurai jurisdiction. 

For Petitioner... 

• Mr.W.Peter Ramesh Kumar 

For Respondents... 

• Mr.R.Muthukumaraswamy, SC for 
• Mr.Pala Ramasamy
• Mr.K.Vellaichamy
• Mr.Sree Kumaran Nair
• Mr.Lajpathi Roy
• Mr.Ajmalkhan
• Ms.Nisha Banu
• Mr.R.Thiagarajan, SC

for Mr.S.Ayyadurai. - - - - :

O R D E R 

K.CHANDRU, J.

This Special Bench was constituted by the Hon'ble Chief Justice vide order dated 14.10.2011 to hear the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.5709 of 2011. The Bench came to be constituted on a reference being made by the division bench vide order dated 26.09.2011.

2.The writ petition was filed by the petitioner, a practicing Advocate of the Madurai Bench allegedly in public interest. Initially, the prayer made in the writ petition is for a direction to the Registrar (Judicial) of the Madurai Bench to number and list the writ petitions falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Bench at Madras at Madurai Bench also as the writ petitions falling within the Madurai Bench jurisdiction are being numbered and listed by the Registrar General of the Madras High Court before the Principal seat at Madras by considering the representation, dated 18.04.2011 and pass further orders.

3.In the representation, dated 18.04.2011 addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, Registrar General of the Madras High Court and the Registrar (Judicial), Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, it was stated by the petitioner that the Madurai Bench was started functioning from 24.7.2004 facing grave opposition mostly from the practicing Advocates at the Principal seat. After great struggle by the Advocates of the Southern Districts, the Madurai Bench became a reality. Once the Madurai Bench became a reality, few districts which were originally designated to the Madurai Bench were taken away by undue influence attached to the Principal seat. To add to this, petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution were being filed at the Principal seat even though there is no territorial jurisdiction for the same. This is being done with the knowledge of both the bench and the bar at the Principal Bench at Madras. Even though there is no legal sanctity for filing writ petitions falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the Madurai Bench, it is being filed by adding one more respondent from the Madras or New Delhi. There was an office note issued by the then Chief Justice of the Madras High Court that no petitions could be filed in Madras which fell within the jurisdiction of the Madurai Bench. Repeated representations to the successive Chief Justices including the present incumbent by the Advocates Association at Madurai did not yield a desired result. Nowhere in the entire subcontinent, the jurisdiction of the benches are transgressed by the Principal seat and that Madras being an exception. Therefore, he had requested the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India to direct filing of petitions under Article 226 falling within the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court, i.e., Principal Bench, at the Madurai Bench also as petitions which ought to have been filed and adjudicated at the Madurai Bench are being done at Madras, which is nothing but an equitable justice.

4.Subsequently, he filed M.P.(MD).No.2 of 2011 seeking to amend the prayer. The amendment prayer reads as follows :

"To issue a writ of mandamus directing the second and third respondents not to pass, number or list writ petitions, writ appeals and habeas corpus writ petitions even if the respondents are from Delhi or Chennai falling within the Madurai Bench territorial jurisdiction / part of falling within Madurai jurisdiction / cause of action and when the petitioner's address is within the Madurai Bench jurisdiction irrespective of the respondents' addresses, at the Principal Seat, Chennai and to further transfer all pending writ petitions, writ appeals and habeas corpus writ petitions filed at the Principal Seat on or after 24.07.2004 falling within the Madurai jurisdiction and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." 

This amendment was ordered by a division bench vide order dated 23.09.2011.

5.Pursuant to the direction dated 23.09.2011, all Associations of lawyers both at the Principal Bench as well as Madurai Bench were issued with notices including the revenue Bar. Accordingly, the Registry had issued telegraphic notices to all Associations numbering 10 intimating that the matter will be heard for arriving at a final decision.

6.Thereafter, the division bench on 26.09.2011 passed the following interim order :

"We have heard the learned Senior counsel, Mr.S.Muthukumarasamy, appearing for the Registrar General. After hearing the arguments rightly on the jurisdiction of this Bench, in respect of the category of case, which arise from the special enactments like Excise Act, Customs Act, Companies Act and Income Tax Act, especially taking note of the latest judgments on the issue of the Supreme Court in 2007 (6) SCC 769 and 1994 (1) SCC 34 and in 2007 (6) SCC 769, the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealt with the Central Excise Act, which has been taken as a third category, has held that the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court is to be determined as per the provisions of the statute concerned by following the earlier judgments in Stridewell Leathers Vs. Bhankerpur Simbhaoli Beverages (P) Ltd., and other Cases. Since a crucial issue is being raised about the jurisdiction of this Bench and the Principal Bench, especially, in respect of the special enactments like Companies Act, Excise Act etc., more particularly about the powers of this Court under Section 10F of the Companies Act, as an appellate Court, we are of the view that the entire bar, both from the Principal Seat as well as the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court ought to be heard for arriving at a final conclusion on this issue. Thus, we have taken the issue suo- motu to be decided in this writ petition. Accordingly, notice is directed to be issued to all the Bar Associations in the Principal Seat as well as Madurai Bench of Madras High Court for hearing on this issue".

2.Since the issue requires a deep consideration and authoritative pronouncement, we are of the view that the matter has to be heard by a Larger Bench. Accordingly, we direct the Registry to place the papers before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice to constitute a Larger Bench for the purpose of deciding the jurisdictional issue preferably, in the month of October 2011 at Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.

3.It is vehemently argued by the respective counsels including Mr.W.Peter Ramesh Kumar and others that in respect of Hebeas Corpus Petitions, even though the detention orders are passed by the authorities, within 13 Districts which are under the control of the Madurai Bench, the Habeas Corpus Petitions are being filed in the Principal Seat. We are of the view that till a final decision is taken, the Habeas Corpus Petitions in respect of which the detention orders are passed by the authorities within 13 Districts shall be filed only at the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. In respect of other cases like writ petitions which depends upon the cause of action, in case of any doubt, Registry shall post the matter before the concerned Hon'ble Judge for a decision as an interim measure till final orders are passed in this writ petition." 

It is pursuant to this reference, this Full Bench came to be formed as noted already.

7.On notice, on behalf of the High Court, a counter affidavit, dated 11.09.2011 sworn to by the Registrar General has been filed. The parties were heard elaborately on various dates.

8.Heard the arguments of Mr.W.Peter Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.Pala Ramasamy led by Mr.R.Muthukumaraswamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the High Court, M/s.K.Vellaichamy, Sree Kumaran Nair, Lajapathi Roy, Ajmalkhan and Nisha Banu for various associations of lawyers at Madurai and Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.S.Ayyadurai, representing the Madras Bar Association as well as Madras High Court Advocates' Association.

9.After the Full Bench started hearing the case, it was brought to the notice by the Registry that the counsel appearing for the petitioner had issued a legal notice dated 08.11.2011 to the respondents in their personal names stating that they have filed a false counter affidavit and they were employing delay tactics. The unnecessary delay on the part of the Registry was paving way for further territorial transgression and that they have committed contempt. The Full Bench took strong exception to such threatening and distasteful language used by the counsel for the petitioner and warned that such a notice issued by him to the respondents pending adjudication on the issue was unwarranted and unless it was withdrawn, the matter will not be heard further. The counsel on realizing his mistake unconditionally withdrew the letter. This is placed on record only for the purpose of informing the Bar that in future no such attempts to threaten the other side should be made by any lawyers especially during the matter was pending and heard by the court. Secondly, addressing letters to the officers of the Registry, who are functioning under the control of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, the same should be done in a polite manner and none can attribute any motive to their action as ultimately all their actions relating to their work are guided by the Hon'ble Chief Justice.

10.Before going into the issue under reference, it is necessary to refer to the constitution of the Madurai Bench by the Presidential order dated 6.7.2004. The order was issued by the Hon'ble President of India by virtue of the power exercised under Section 51(2) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. It is necessary to refer to the order, which reads as follows :

"1.Short title and commencement:

(1)This Order may be called the Madras High Court (Establishment of a Permanent Bench at Madurai) Order, 2004.

(2)It shall come into force on 24.7.2004. 2.Establishment of a permanent bench of the Madras High Court at Madurai :

-

There shall be established a permanent bench of the Madras High Court at Madurai, and such Judges of the Madras High Court, being not less than five in number, as the Chief justice of that High Court may, from time to time nominate, shall sit at Madurai in order to exercise the jurisdiction and powers for the time being vested in that High Court in respect of cases arising in the districts of Kanyakumari, Tirunelveli, Tuticorin, Madurai, Dindugal, Ramanathapuram, Virudhunagar, Sivaganga, Pudukkottai, Thanjavur, Nagapattinam, Tiruchirappalli, Perambalur and Karur in the State of Tamil Nadu:

 

Provided that the Chief Justice of that High Court may, in his discretion, order that any case or class of cases arising in any such district shall be heard at Chennai.

(Emphasis added)"

11.Subsequently, an amendment was issued to the notification on 26.10.2009 that Nagapattinam and Perambalur Districts notified under the jurisdiction of the Madurai Bench were deleted and came to be attached to the Principal Bench. The notification dated 26.10.2009 reads as follows :

THE MADRAS HIGH COURT (ESTABLISHMENT OF A PERMANENT BENCH AT MADURAI) AMENDMENT ORDER, 2009

"In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 51 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (37 of 1956), read with section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), the President, after consultation with the Governor of Tamil Nadu and the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, is pleased to make the following order to amend the Madras High Court (Establishment of a Permanent Bench at Madurai) Order, 2004, namely:

- 1.(1)This Order may be called the Madras High Court (Establishment of a Permanent Bench at Madurai) Amendment Order, 2009.

(2)It shall come into force on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette. 2.In the Madras High Court (Establishment of a Permanent Bench at Madurai) Order, 2004, in paragraph 2, the words "Nagapattinam" and "Perambalur" shall be omitted. 3.Any appeal, application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, application for review and other proceedings pertaining to the Districts of Nagapattinam and Perambalur pending for disposal in the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court prior to commencement of this Order shall stand transferred to the principal seat of the Madras High Court."

12.This decision by the High Court was taken after consulting all parties and respective bar associations by a Special Committee of judges constituted by the Chief Justice. After the Madurai Bench was inaugurated on 24.07.2004, under the order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, the Registrar General of the High Court issued a notification No.150 /2004 (R.O.C.No.76 /2004), which reads as follows :

In the reference cited, the Honourable the Chief Justice, High Court, Madras, has issued directions to dispose of

(a)all the cases arising in the Revenue Districts of Chennai, Kancheepuram, Thiruvallur, Villupuram, Tiruvannamalai, Vellore, Dharmapurai, Krishnagiri, Cuddalore, the Nilgiris, Coimbatore, Salem, Erode, Namakkal, Nagapattinam, Perambalur, Thiruvarur and Pondicherry (Judicial Districts of Madras, Chengalpattu, Villupuram, Tiruvannamalai, Vellore, Dharmapuri, Cuddalore, the Nilgiris, Coimbatore, Salem, Erode, Namakkal, Nagapattinam, Perambalur and Pondicherry) at the Principal Seat of Madras High Court at Chennai; and

(b)all the cases arising in the Revenue Districts of Trichirapalli, Karur, Thanjavur, Pudukkottai, Madurai, Dindigul, Sivagangai, Ramanathapuram, Virudhunagar, Tirunelveli, Thoothukudi, Kanniyakumari and Theni (Judicial Districts of Trichirapalli, Karur, Thanjavur, Pudukkottai, Madurai, Dindigul, Sivagangai, Ramanathapuram, Virudhunagar, Tirunelveli, Thoothukudi and Kanniyakumari) at the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court at Madurai, with immediate effect.

Hence, from 11.10.2004 onwards, no filing of any cases arising out of the above revenue/judicial districts within the jurisdiction of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, shall be entertained by the Registry of the Principal Seat of Madras High Court at Chennai. Even unnumbered cases arising out of the jurisdiction of Madurai Bench shall be returned to be presented before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court at Madurai.

Pending disposal of the writ petitions challenging the Madras High Court (Establishment of a Permanent Bench at Madurai) Order, 2004, only civil and criminal cases, which were pending as on 24.7.2004, were transferred to Madurai Bench and not other types of cases like pending writ petitions, writ appeals, company cases etc. and only fresh writ petitions from 24.7.2004 arising out of the jurisdiction of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, which were filed, were being entertained by the Madurai Bench. In view of the order of the Honourable the Chief Justice cited in the reference, all pending cases of any nature, arising out of the above revenue / judicial districts within the jurisdiction of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, be immediately transferred to be heard at Madurai Bench of Madras High Court at Madurai."

13.The writ petitions challenging the Presidential notification came to be dismissed by a division bench headed by B.Subhashan Reddy, C.J. and was upheld vide its judgment in V.Subramanian Vs. Union of India reported in (2004) 4 MLJ 380 (Mad). Ever since the notification issued, the Registry has been following those circulars and orders. In paragraphs 9 and 14 of the counter, it was averred as follows ;

"9....Whenever any writ petition is filed before the Principal seat or the Permanent Bench Seat, the Registry examines the matter and numbers the case if it is found that the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the respective seats. Wherever it is found by the Registry that there is no territorial jurisdiction, the papers are returned to the Counsel on the ground of want of jurisdiction. Wherever there is doubt regarding territorial jurisdiction, the Registry submits an office note for maintainability regarding jurisdiction to the Hon'ble Judges concerned for orders and depending on the orders passed, the papers are either numbered and posted before court or returned. It may also be stated that when matters are filed before the Principal Seat at Madras and also at Madurai bench, after getting necessary orders from the Hon'ble Chief Justice, the cases in the Madurai bench are listed with the cases pending in the Principal seat at Madras in order to avoid divergent views in the subject.

14.It is respectfully submitted that the Respondents 2 and 4 have been strictly adhering and following the Presidential orders submitted supra. It is submitted that only such writ petitions where the jurisdiction falls within the Principal Seat are entertained and numbered. Whenever there are doubts, as stated already, notes are put up to the Hon'ble judges on the question of maintainability and only after the court orders, the matter are numbered and posted for hearing. The principles laid by the Supreme Court in the case referred to above are followed by which only cases where the cause of action arises either wholly or in the part within the jurisdiction of the Principal Seat are numbered and listed before the Principal Bench at Madras."

(Emphasis added)

14.In the light of these developments, 4 principal questions arises for consideration in this writ petition which are as follows :

(i)Whether the petitioner either in his individual capacity or in a representative of any Association of Advocates or the Associations of Advocates themselves are entitled to maintain the writ petition of this nature?

(ii)Whether a direction sought for by the petitioner can be granted that too in a writ petition filed as a public interest litigation?

(iii)Whether suo motu cognizance taken by the division bench is to be answered in this writ petition?

(iv)Whether any direction as sought for by the petitioner can be granted by this court in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution ?

15.Before proceeding to deal with various contentions, it has to be seen that the questions raised herein have been squarely answered by the Supreme Court in various judgments, more particularly in a decision in Rajasthan High Court Advocates' Association Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2001) 2 SCC 294. In that case, the Rajasthan High Cort Advocates' Association filed a writ petition. The question raised was whether inserting an explanation to the earlier order of the Acting Chief Justice, dated 23.12.1976 by a subsequent order dated 12.1.1977 was ultra vires of the powers of the Chief Justice? It was contended that except States Reorganisation Act and the Presidential Order, there is no other provisions of law authorizes the Chief Justice to define whether the cause of action in a writ petition would be deemed to have arisen so as to determine where it would be filed. The High Court had upheld the contention and struck down the explanation.

16.The explanation appended to the earlier notification read as follows :

"Explanation.-A writ case shall be deemed to arise in the district where the cause of action for issuing the first order pertaining to that case passed by a court, tribunal or authority has arisen irrespective of the district in which the appeal or revision from that order is heard and irrespective also of the fact whether or not there has been any modification or reversal of the order in appeal or revision."

17.Aggrieved by the same, the Rajasthan High Court Advocates' Association filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court while noting the division bench order in paragraph 5 had recorded a finding that the Advocate who challenged the order cannot be said to be a person aggrieved. The findings of the division bench was recorded as follows :

"5.....It appears that the Division Bench (vide para 37 of the report) formed an opinion that the appellant before it was an advocate practising at Jodhpur and nothing was brought to the notice of the Division Bench to show if he was a "person aggrieved"."

18.This opinion of the Rajasthan high Court was not disturbed by the Supreme Court as can be seen from paragraph 19 which is as follows :

"19.For the foregoing reasons we do not find any fault with the findings arrived at by the High Court. The appeal is dismissed... ."

19.Secondly, the question of cause of action arising in a case and the necessary corollary of that case being heard by a particular bench was also considered in the same judgment. In paragraphs 17 and 18, it was observed as follows :

"17.The expression "cause of action" has acquired a judicially-settled meaning. In the restricted sense cause of action means the circumstances forming the infraction of the right or the immediate occasion for the action. In the wider sense, it means the necessary conditions for the maintenance of the suit, including not only the infraction of the right, but the infraction coupled with the right itself. Compendiously the expression means every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. Every fact which is necessary to be proved, as distinguished from every piece of evidence which is necessary to prove each fact, comprises in "cause of action". It has to be left to be determined in each individual case as to where the cause of action arises. The Chief Justice of the High Court has not been conferred with the legislative competence to define cause of action or to declare where it would be deemed to have arisen so as to lay down artificial or deeming test for determining territorial jurisdiction over an individual case or class of cases. The permanent Bench at Jaipur has been established by the Presidential Order issued under sub-section (2) of Section 51 of the Act. The territorial jurisdiction of the permanent Bench at Jaipur is to be exercised in respect of the cases arising in the specified districts. Whether the case arises from one of the specified districts or not so as to determine the jurisdictional competence to hear by reference to territory bifurcated between the principal seat and the Bench seat, shall be an issue to be decided in an individual case by the Judge or Judges hearing the matter if a question may arise in that regard. The impugned explanation appended to the order of the Chief Justice dated 23-12-1976 runs counter to the Presidential Order and in a sense it is an inroad into the jurisdiction of the Judges hearing a particular case or cases, pre-empting a decision to be given in the facts of individual case whether it can be said to have arisen in the territory of a particular district. The High Court is right in taking the view which it has done. 

18.It was submitted at the end by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Division Bench of the High Court in its impugned order has observed that the permanent Bench at Jaipur shall have "exclusive jurisdiction" to hear the cases arising out of the 11 specified districts and the High Court at Jodhpur shall not have jurisdiction to hear those cases which fall within the territorial jurisdiction of Jaipur Bench. He submitted that the use of word "exclusive" prefixed to "jurisdiction" is uncalled for. We find no substance in this contention as well. The purpose of the Presidential Order is to carve out and define territorial jurisdiction between the principal seat at Jodhpur and the permanent Bench seat at Jaipur. The cases are to be heard accordingly, unless the Chief Justice may exercise in his discretion the power vested in him by the proviso to para 2 of the Presidential Order. Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution provide how territorial jurisdiction shall be exercised by any High Court. Although the said clauses do not deal with principal seat or permanent Bench of any High Court but in our opinion, there is no reason why the principle underlying thereunder cannot be applied to the functioning of the bifurcated territorial jurisdiction between the principal seat and permanent Bench seat of any High Court. In case of a dispute arising whether an individual case or cases should be filed and heard at Jodhpur or Jaipur, the same has to be found out by applying the test - from which district the case arises, that is, in which district the cause of action can be said to have arisen and then exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution."

(Emphasis added)

20.The law laid down in the Rajasthan High Court Advocates' Association's case should settle the matter once and for all as it had cleared all doubts on the questions raised. In the Rajasthan High Court Advocates' Association's case, the Supreme Court had held that the Advocate has no locus standi to file a writ petition of this nature and the cause of action will have to be decided on the facts of each individual case. Further there is impermissibility for giving directions by the Chief Justice. Hence the writ petition is liable to be rejected on this short ground.

21.Notwithstanding the same, as the matter had aroused considerable interest of members of the Bar and notices were issued to 10 Bar Associations, they were allowed to argue the matter elaborately.

22.Even before the Rajasthan's case, similar disputes arose in the Allahabad High Court regarding the issue of jurisdiction between the Allahabad Bench and the Lucknow Bench. The earliest case was Sri Nasiruddin Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal reported in (1975) 2 SCC 671. In that case, the Supreme Court in paragraphs 37 to 39 had observed as follows :

"37.The conclusion as well as the reasoning of the High Court is incorrect. It is unsound because the expression "cause of action" in an application under Article 226 would be as the expression is understood and if the cause of action arose because of the appellate order or the revisional order which came to be passed at Lucknow then Lucknow would have jurisdiction though the original order was passed at a place outside the areas in Oudh. It may be that the original order was in favour of the person applying for a writ. In such case an adverse appellate order might be the cause of action. The expression "cause of action" is well-known. If the cause of action arises wholly or in part at a place within the specified Oudh areas, the Lucknow Bench will have jurisdiction. If the cause of action arises wholly within the specified Oudh areas, it is indisputable 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. In such cases, it is incorrect to say that the litigant chooses any particular court. The choice is by reason of the 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 is rightly attracted by the alleged cause of action.

38.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 para 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 para 14 of the Order be directed to be heard at Allahabad. Fourth, the expression "cause of action" with regard to a civil matters 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 when the offence has been committed or otherwise as provided in the Criminal Procedure Code. That will attract the jurisdiction of the Court at Allahabad or Lucknow. In some cases depending on the facts and the provision regarding jurisdiction, it may arise in either place.

39.Applications 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."

(Emphasis added)

23.Subsequently, the Supreme Court faced another litigation arising out of the territorial jurisdiction between two benches vide judgment in U.P. Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad, Lucknow Vs. State of U.P and others reported in (1995) 4 SCC 738, wherein the judgment in Nasiruddin's case (cited supra) was affirmed. The Supreme Court in paragraph 14 had observed as follows :

"14.While reaching the above conclusion this Court kept in view the plain language of clause 14 of the Amalgamation Order. No provision of the Code of Civil Procedure was noticed, referred to or taken into consideration directly or indirectly. The territorial jurisdiction of a court and the "cause of action" are interlinked. To decide the question of territorial jurisdiction it is necessary to find out the place where the "cause of action" arose. We, with respect, reiterate that the law laid down by a four-Judge Bench of this Court in Nasiruddin case2 holds good even today despite the incorporation of an Explanation to Section 141 to the Code of Civil Procedure."

(Emphasis added)

24.The counsel for the petitioner referred to several decisions to decide as what constitutes a "cause of action" in a particular case. But referring to those judgments is unnecessary as the purpose of the Full bench is not to decide as to what is a "cause of action" in general terms, since no particular case is before this court to analyse whether any case was entertained at the Principal Bench even though without any jurisdiction. The writ petition itself has been filed without giving details of any such cases so as to examine any particular case by this bench to decide whether jurisdiction was exercised improperly or not.

25.Even otherwise as averred in the counter affidavit filed by the Registry, cases were examined by the Appeal Examiners. In case of any doubt, the matters are brought to the notice of the concerned Judge holding a particular portfolio or the Roster to decide the question of maintainability either in the Chamber or in the open court. If in any particular case, if the court had upheld the maintainability of the writ petition or entertained the case, then the jurisdictional issue could be raised only before the necessary appellate forum by the concerned aggrieved party as held by the Supreme Court in Rajasthan High Court Advocates' Association's case (cited supra). The aggrieved party in such a case is only the litigant before the court. Issue relating to want of jurisdiction can be raised only before the next appellate forum, (i.e., either before the division bench or before the Supreme Court as the case may be). Such orders cannot be attacked collaterally that too by third parties to the litigation.

26.The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is vague in respect of particulars. Sweeping statements were made against the conduct of the Registry in allegedly entertaining matters which are to be brought before the Madurai Bench, but were erroneously entertained by the Principal Bench. To put it in nutshell, in each case, when there is application or non application by the Registry in numbering the matter, the concerned judge further takes the responsibility of either entertaining the case or returning the matter for proper presentation before the appropriate bench. Even assuming there has been certain lapses, then nothing prevented the contesting respondents in those cases to raise the issue in an appropriate manner. There will be time enough for the Hon'ble Judges of this court to pass orders in those matters after deciding the jurisdictional issue also. The wild allegations made can never be entertained that too as a public interest litigation.

27.Even otherwise, similar questions regarding cause of action and the territorial division between two benches have arisen before this court in more than one occasion. It is necessary to refer to one or two decisions. In E.Mary Oliviya Vs. E.Jsohua Milton reported in (2008) 7 MLJ 1012, a division bench of this court presided by P.K.Misra, J. (as he then was) went into the question of the jurisdictional issue after analyzing all cases cited by the Bar. In paragraph 42, the legal position has been summarized, which reads as follows :

"42.From the above discussion and analysis of various, provisions and decisions of several Courts, including the Supreme Court, our conclusions are as follows:

 

(1)Establishment of a Permanent Bench has the effect of bifurcation of the State into two for the purpose of territorial jurisdiction of the Madras High Court between the Principal Bench at Chennai and the Permanent Bench at Madurai.

(2)The District Courts and all other Courts inferior to that of the District Courts are subordinate to Madras High Court irrespective of its place of sitting.

(3)Appeal or Revision can be filed before the Principal Bench at Chennai or Permanent Bench at Madurai depending upon the situs of the Court against whose decision the Appeal or Revision is sought to be filed. An appeal or revision against the decision of a Court situate within the jurisdiction of the Principal Bench at Chennai has to be filed before the said, Principal Branch whereas the appeals and revisions arising from the orders of Courts coining within the districts earmarked for the permanent Bench at Madurai have to be filed at Madurai.

(4)Writ petitions can be filed before the Principal Bench at Madras or Permanent Bench at Madurai depending upon the place where the cause of action has arisen. If the cause of action has arisen wholly within the jurisdiction of the Principal Bench or the Permanent Bench, obviously such writ petition can be filed only at the seat of the Principal Bench or of the Permanent Bench as the case may be. On the other hand, if the cause of action arises either wholly or in part within the areas allotted to the Principal Bench at Chennai and the Permanent Bench at Madurai, the writ petition can be filed at any of the places.

(5)A proceeding for transfer under Sections 22 to 24 of the C.P.C., partakes the character of an original proceeding and can be filed before the Principal Bench or the Permanent Bench depending upon the "cause of action" or "the reason" for filing such transfer petition. In order to avoid any possible confusion in such matter relating to filing of transfer position, we make it clear that where a person seeks transfer of a case from a place to another place coming within the jurisdiction of one Bench, such transfer position has to be filed before the very same Bench. On the other hand, where transfer is sought from a Court coming within the jurisdiction of the other Bench, such transfer petition can be filed before either Bench, obviously depending upon the cause of action for such transfer petition and the convenience of the petitioner.

(6)The Honourable the Chief Justice has discretion to direct that any writ filed or pending before the Principal Bench or the Permanent Bench can be taken up for disposal before the Permanent Bench or the Principal Bench, as the case may be." 

This should have set at rest all controversies regarding the jurisdiction between two benches. But unnecessary controversies have been raised without any fruitful purpose.

28.It must also be noted that another Full bench of this court in Sanjos Jewellers and others Vs. Syndicate Bank and another reported in 2007 (5) CTC 305 went into the question as to what constitutes territorial jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. In that case, the question referred to was whether the writ petition challenging an order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) situated within the territorial limits of this High Court, while the original Tribunal is situated in another State is maintainable and whether the decisions of the earlier division bench in Bhanu Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Andhra Bank reported in 2005 (5) CTC 721 was correct or not. In answering the same, the Full Bench in paragraphs 15 and 16 held as follows :

"15.As already stated, on facts in Bhanu Construction's case, the High Court refused to exercise jurisdiction. But on law, the finding that this Court would not have jurisdiction, eventhough it is the Appellate Authority whose order is subject to scrutiny and eventhough the Appellate Authority is situate in Chennai, is contrary to the law laid down in Kusum Ingots Case. The party would have the right to choose either of the fora. Therefore, against the order of an Appellate Authority at Chennai, the Writ Petition is maintainable on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. The question whether on the ground of forum convenience or other reasons, the High Court refuses to exercise its discretion is quite another matter.

16.The decision in Bhanu Constructions Pvt. Ltd.'s case as regards maintainability is not correct. The order of reference is answered accordingly."

29.The above discussion will answer the three issues raised here, i.e., the locus standi of an Advocate to bring a public interest litigation of this nature as well as the power to give directions to the Registry as well as the power exercised by the Chief Justice under the Presidential Order. Hence those three issues are answered against the petitioner.

30.Further, the question of suo motu cognizance does not arise for consideration because as held already the matter will have to be decided only on the basis of the facts of the each case as held by the Rajasthan High Court Advocates' Association's case (cited supra) and the Registry will have to apply its mind in this regard. The Chief Justice alone is the competent authority to decide the posting of the matter either before the Principal Bench or before the Madurai Bench. Even for taking suo motu cognizance of the matter, a division bench of this court presided by M.Y.Eqbal, C.J. vide decision in The Chief Election Commissioner, The Election Commission of India, Nirvachan Sadhan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi and others reported in 2011 (6) CTC 129 expressed caution about taking suo motu cognizance in the public interest litigation. In paragraph 2, it was observed as follows :

"2.Before going into the merits of the case, we would like to express our view with regard to the power of the Hon'ble Judges in initiating writ proceeding suo motu. There is no dispute that initiation of writ proceeding suo motu, in public interest, is within the competence of every Hon'ble Judge of this Court, which is the integral part of the constitutional scheme. But, such power is required to be exercised and regulated in accordance with the rules made by the High Court and the norms set keeping in view the administrative instructions issued and roster of sitting prepared by the Chief Justice. While exercising suo motu power of exercising public interest litigation, self-restraint and judicious exercise is expected to be borne in mind. It would be appreciated that as and when any matter of public importance is sought to be brought to the notice of the Court, a reference may be made to the Chief Justice for initiation of action. After such reference is made by any Hon'ble Judge to the Chief Justice for initiation of action, the Chief Justice will examine the matter according to the guidelines formulated by the Supreme Court and after the matter is examined, the same can be placed before the appropriate Bench in accordance with the directive issued in that regard by the Chief Justice for further necessary action. While exercising power of initiating suo motu writ proceeding in public interest, great care and caution should be taken by the Hon'ble Judge, keeping in mind the directions and observations made by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions. It would not be proper that as and when any news item is published in the newspaper, the Court will take notice of such news item and treat the same as writ petition suo motu in public interest without referring the matter to the Chief Justice."

(Emphasis added)

31.The petitioner's present prayer goes contrary to the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajasthan High Court Advocates' Association's case (cited supra) and such a prayer cannot be granted. In fact, some counsels who appeared in this case brought to the notice that even in case of Habeas Corpus writ petitions, the order of detention can be challenged both at the Principal Bench as well as before the Madurai Bench depending upon the cause of action including the place in which the advisory committee sat and passed orders and rejection sent by the Government. This is especially so that Article 21 of the Constitution guaranteeing liberty of a person cannot brook any delay and it is for the party to decide as to where such habeas corpus petitions should be filed. Even in those cases it is for the examining officers of the Registry to initially scrutinize the papers and in case of doubt, to place it before the Hon'ble Judge for an appropriate order both on administrative side as well as on judicial side. As already held, the petitioner, being an Advocate and cannot be said to be a person aggrieved, cannot question such matters.

32.Since the Chief Justice is the Master of Rolls and the jurisdiction of each High Court is well defined by the Presidential order and by a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court as well as this Court defining the scope of the Presidential order as well as the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and also the territorial divisions between the two High Courts having benches in the same State at different places and also the question of cause of action both in civil and criminal cases have been well settled, a direction sought for by the petitioner cannot be countenanced by this Court.

33.The issues raised before this Full Bench are answered accordingly. The writ petition will stand dismissed. Miscellaneous petition will stand closed. No costs.