The companytention raised before the Lucknow Bench was that the sale in terms of the numberification, if finalised, 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.
JUDGMENT The following Judgment of the Court was delivered P. Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad, Lucknow VERSUS The State of U. P Others JUDGMENT 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 vs. State of U.P. and other Writ Petition No.35951 of 1994 .
The judgment in Chini Mills case is by the Bench companysisting of B. M. Lall and S.R.Singh,JJ.
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.
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.
This was done under the Government Order dated February 4, 1856 read with the Oudh Civil Courts Act, 1879.
in Chini Mills case was also pending companysideration in A. 86 of 1994 before a Bench of the Allahabad High Court companysisting of S. R. Sharma and Shobha Dixit, JJ.
It would be useful to mention at this stage that the precise question which was before B.M. Lall and S. R. Singh, JJ.
The judges of the existing High Courts, namely, the Allahabad High Court and the Oudh Chief Court became Judges of the new High Court.
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.
Clause 14 of the Amalgamation order is as under The new High Court and the judges and division 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 Court of Oudh with one Chief Justice and four puisne judges was established replacing the Judicial Commissioners Court.
One of the sugar mills was situated within the Oudh area whereas the remaining five mills were situated outside the Oudh area.
Before the High Court a numberification Order issued by the Utter Pradesh Government at Lucknow, whereunder it was decided to sell six sugar factories, was challenged by way of a writ petition.
The said order came into force on July 19, 1948.
The Division Bench of the High Court accepted the companytention.
The special leave petition is disposed of as such.
The Bench by its order dated September 5, 1994 referred the question to a Full Bench of three judges.
delivered the judgment in Chini Mills case the matter was pending companysideration before a Full Bench of the High Court.
The Chief Justice of the existing High Court became the Chief Justice of the new High Court.
In 1925 Oudh Courts Act was passed by the Utter Pradesh Legislature.
It is thus obvious that on September 23, 1994 when B.M. Lall and S. R. Singh, JJ.
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.
B.M. Lall,J. who primarily spoke for the Bench interpreted the relevant expression in clause 14 of the Amalgamation Order in the following words Thus in this companytext if entire provision of Clause 14 is read together, the true intent ingrained in the expression appears to be that the Judges shall sit at Lucknow in order to exercise power and jurisdiction vested in the High Court in respect of cases pertaining to Oudh area alone and number pertaining to the area outside the Oudh area.
It was in this background that the Governor General made the Amalgamation Order.
The answer to the said question further depended on the interpretation of the expression in respect of cases arising in such areas in Oudh occurring in first proviso to Article 14 of the High Court Amalgamation Order, 1948 hereinafter called 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.
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.
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.
