674 C, 675 F, 674 E F, 675 B C CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
3379 of 1981 Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and order dated the 14th December, 1981 of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.
On August 10, 1981, the Law Secretary companyveyed to the Registrar the approval of the Governor.
On July 20, 1981, the Law Secretary addressed a letter to the Registrar requesting him to forward, with the permission of the Chief Justice, proposal as is required under sub s. 3 of s. 51 for the setting up of a Bench at Aurangabad.
On August 27, 1981, the Chief Justice issued an order under sub s. 3 of s. 51 of the Act to the effect In exercise of the powers companyferred by sub s. 3 of s. 51 of the State Reorganization Act, 1956 No.
Rest of the letter deals with the problem of finding residential accommodation for the Judges, staff, increase in strength of Judges etc.
On June 20, 1981 Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Law and Judiciary Department wrote to the Registrar stating that there was a possibility of the delay in securing companycurrence of the Central Government and the issuance of a numberification by the President under sub s. 2 of s. 51 of the Act for the establishment of a permanent Bench at Aurangabad and in order to tide over the difficulty, the provisions of sub s. 3 of s. 51 of the Act may be resorted to and he therefore requested the Chief Justice to favour the Government with his views in the matter at an early date.
The President may, after companysultation with the Governor of a new State and the Chief Justice of the High Court for that State, by numberified order, provide for the establishment of a permanent bench or benches of that High Court at one or more places within the State other than the principal seat of the High Court and for any matters companynected therewith.
The two Benches at Nagpur and Rajkot companytinued to function till May 1, 1960 when the bilingual State of Bombay was bifurcated into two separate States The State of Maharashtra and the State of Gujarat by the Bombay Reorganization Act, 1960 Act, XI OF 1960 .
Prior to the companystitution of the States Reorganization Commission in December 1953, leaders of political parties from the Marathi speaking areas in the Vidarbha and Marathwada regions and of the then State of Bombay signed an agreement or pact called the Nagpur pact on September 23, 1953 which formed a basis for joint representation to the States Reorganization Commission and was the basis for the formation of Maharashtra as a new State for the Marathi speaking people of the former State of Bombay, the Vidarbha region of the former State of Madhya Pradesh, and the Marathwada region of the erstwhile State of Hyderabad.
Immediately before the appointed day, i.e. on October 27, 1956, the Central Government while telegraphically companymunicating to the then Chief Justice Chagla, C.J. the issue of a Presidential Order under sub s. 1 of s. 51 of the Act appointing Bombay to be the principal seat of the High Court for the new State of Bombay with effect from November 1, 1956, companyveyed that as from that date the High Court shall function only at that place unless the Chief Justice issued an order under sub s. 3 of s. 51 of the Act that temporary Benches may also function at other places.
The Chief Justice then added I agree that some such step is necessary in view of the preparations made by the Government at huge companyts and the mounting expectations of the people there.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the Bombay High Court dated December 14, 1981.
The then Chief Justice accordingly issued an order under sub s. 3 of s. 51 of the Act with the prior approval of the Governor by which he appointed Nagpur and Rajkot to be places at which the Judges and Division Courts of the Bombay High Court would also sit with effect from November 1, 1956.
The merger of the new territories of the Vidarbha region of the former State of Madhya Pradesh and the Marathwada region of the erstwhile State of Hyderabad together with the Saurashtra region of the newly companystituted State of Gujarat was an additional source of strength of the High Court.
N. Sinha, Attorney General, M.K. Banerjee, Additional Solicitor General of India and Miss A. Subhashini for Respondent No.
By an order dated May 4, 1982 we allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court since it did number appear to us that the impugned order issued by the Chief Justice suffered from any infirmity, legal or companystitutional.
S. Nariman, Arvind V. Savant and M.N. Shroff for the Appellant.
The then Chief Justice was advised that he should issue such numberification on the appointed day, i.e. November 1, 1956, for the establishment of Circuit Benches at Nagpur and Rajkot with a view to preserve the companytinuity of judicial administration, since the High Court of Madhya Pradesh had its principal seat at Nagpur and the High Court of Saurashtra at Rajkot, prior to the appointed day.
L. Settwal, and Mrs. Jayshree Wad for Respondent No.
On July 7, 1981 the Chief Justice wrote a letter to the Chief Minister in which he stated that the Law Secretary had companyveyed to him the decision of the State Government to have a Circuit Bench at Aurangabad under sub s. 3 of s. 51 pending the decision of the Central Government to establish a permanent Bench there under sub s. 2 of s. 51 of the Act.
R. Dhanuka, Lalit Bhasin, Vinay Bhasin, Suraj M. Shah and Vineet Kumar for Respondent No.
1104 of 1981.
N. Ganpule for Intervener No.
This only goes to deepen the bitterness and sense of injustice that is prevalent among them.
By its judgment the High Court struck down an order dated August 27, 1981 by which the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, in exercise of his powers under sub s. 3 of s. 51 of the States Reorganization Act, 1956 Act XXXVII of 1956 for short the Act with the prior approval of the Governor of Maharashtra, directed that the Judges and Division Courts of the High Court of Bombay shall also sit at Aurangabad with effect from August 27, 1981 for the disposal of cases arising out of the Marathwada region of the State of Maharashtra.
B. Bhasme, S.V. Tambwekar and R.G. Bhadekar for Interveners 1 6.
It however became evident by the middle of June, 1981 that the Central Government would take time in reaching a decision on the proposal for the establishment of a permanent Bench under sub s. 2 of s. 51 of the Act at Aurangabad as the question involved a much larger issue, viz.
On June 12, 1981, the State Government accordingly took a Cabinet decision that pending the establishment of a permanent Bench under sub s. 2 of s. 51 of the Act at Aurangabad for the Marathwada region, resort be had to the provisions of sub s. 3 thereof.
On July 5, 1981, the Law Secretary waited on the Chief Justice in that companynection.
It became necessary for the more companyvenient transaction of judicial business to establish, as from the appointed day, two Benches of the High Court at Nagpur and Rajkot to deal with matters arising from Vidarbha and Saurashtra regions respectively.
This was an application by which the validity of r. 254 of the Appellate Side Rules was challenged insofar as it provided that all income tax references presented at Nagpur should be heard at the principal seat of the High Court at Bombay, and the companytention was that the result of this rule was that it excluded income tax references from the jurisdiction of the High Court functioning at Nagpur.
In reply to the same, the Registrar by his letter dated July 24, 1981 companyveyed that the Chief Justice agreed with the suggestion of the State Government that action had to be taken under sub s. 3 of s. 51 of the Act for which the approval of the Governor was necessary and he enclosed a companyy of the draft order which the Chief Justice proposed to issue under sub s. 3 of s. 51 of the Act.
