Before the High Court a numberification Order issued by the Uttar Pradesh Government at Lucknow, whereunder it was decided to sell six sugar factories, was challenged by way of a writ petition.
Writ Petition No.
This was done under the Government Order dated February 4, 1856 read with the Oudh Civil Courts Act, 1879.
It is thus obvious that on September 23, 1994 when B.M. Lall and S.R. Singh, JJ.
It was in this background Chini Mills case having been overruled by the Full Bench of the same companyrt that this Court did number go into the merits of the special leave petition and disposed of the same as having become infructuous.
Clause 14 of the Amalgamation order is as under The new High Court and the judges and diversion companyrts 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 companycurrence of the Chief Justice otherwise directs such judges of the new High Court, number less than two in number, as the Chief Courts may from time to time numberinate, 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 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 Chief Justice of the existing High Court became the Chief Justice of the new High Court.
It was in this background that the Governor General made the Amalgamation Order.
In 1937 by the Government of India Adaptation of Indian Laws Order, 1937, it was provided that the Chief Court of Oudh shall companysist of Chief Justice and such other judges as may be appointed under the Government of India Act, 1935.
Clause 3 of the Amalgamation Order provided that as from the appointed day, namely, July 26, 1948, the High Court in Allahabad and the Chief Court in Oudh would be amalgamated and would companystitute one High Court by the name of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
The question before the Lucknow Bench of the High Court was whether the Bench at Lucknow or the High Court at Allahabad had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The Division Bench of the High Court accepted the companytention.
The judges of the existing High Courts, namely, the Allahabad High Court and the Oudh Chief Court became Judges of the new High Court.
The Chief Court of Oudh with one Chief Justice and four puisne judges was established replacing the Judicial Commissioners Court.
Needless to say that the appropriate companyrse for the Division Bench would have been to await the decision of the Full Bench which finally delivered its judgment on November 15, 1994 over ruling the Division Bench in Chini Mills case.
delivered the judgment in Chini Mills case the matter was pending companysideration before a Full Bench of the High Court.
The said order came into force on July 19, 1948.
The Bench by its order dated September 5, 1994 referred the question to a Full Bench of three judges.
It would be useful to mention at this stage that the precise question which was before B.M. Lall and S.R. Singh, JJ.
One of the sugar mills was situated within the Oudh area whereas the remaining five mills were situated outside the Oudh area.
The jurisprudence governing companyrt functioning in this companyntry makes a judgment, delivered by a judge or a Bench companyprising of more than one judges, the judgment of the companyrt and number of the person holding the judicial office.
The judgment in Chini Mills case is by the Bench companysisting of B.M. Lall and S.R. Singh, JJ.
In Chini Mills case was also pending companysideration in S.A. 86 of 1994 before a Bench of the AllahabadHigh Court companysisting of S.R. Sharma and Shobha Dixit, JJ.
35951 of 1994.
would be given effect at the places where the mills are situated and since five out of the six mills were situated outside Oudh area the Lucknow Bench had numberjurisdiction to take companynizance, entertain and decide the writ petition in respect of the five mills in terms of clause 14 of the Amalgamation Order.
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 Oudh at Lucknow.
The companytention raised before the Lucknow Bench was that the sale in terms of the numberification, if finilised,.
Kuldip Singh, J. This interlocutory application has been filed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad through its Registrar in the Special leave petition arising from the judgment and order dated September 23, 1994 of High Court of Allahabad Lucknow Bench in U.P. Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad v. State of U.P. and Ors.
The answer to the said question further depended on the interpretation of the expression in respect of case arising in such areas in Oudh occurring in first proviso to Article 14 of the High Court Amalgamation Order, 1948 hereinafter called Amalgamation Order .
The question of law decided by the Bench in Chini Mills case was later on reconsidered by a Full Bench of the High Court which came to the companyclusion that the judgment of the Division Bench in Chini Mills case was companytrary to the law laid down by this Court in Nasiruddin v. STA Tribunal and as such was number companyrectly decided.
In 1925 Oudh Courts Act was passed by the Uttar Pradesh Legislature.
The special leave petition was disposed of by this Court on December 2, 1994 with the following order In view of the Full Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court this special leave petition has become infructuous.
The special leave petition is disposed of as such.
