NASIRUDDIN versus STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Citation: [1976] 1 S.C.R. 505 · Decided: 29-08-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
• 
A 
NASIR UDDIN 
v . 
STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 
August 29, 1975 
505 
(A. N. RAY, C.J., K. K. MATHEW, V. R. KRISHNA !YER AND 
B 
S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.) 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
United Prol'fllces High Courts (A nialga1nario11) Order, 1948, l'aragraphs 7 
and 14-Seat of the High Court-Allahabad, if the pennane11f ~·eat of Hit?h Court 
-Chief Justice. if can reduce the areas in Oudh. 
, lntQrpretation of Statutes-Plain and una1nbiguous words, 11'/ien could be 
interpreted in their ordinary sense. 
Paragraph 7 of the United Provinces High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 
1948, provides that (I) The new Jligh Court shall have, in respect of the whole 
of the lTnited Provinces, all such original, appellate and other jurisdiction as, 
under the la\v in force immediately before the appointed day, is exercisable in. 
respect cf any part of that province by either of the existing High Court; (2) 
The ne\V 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 ima1ediately 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 Uni~ed Provinces a<; the Chief Justice may, with the approval of the Gov~rnor 
of the United Provinces, appoint. 
The first proviso to 'this paragraph provides. 
that unless the Governor of the United Provinces v.,rith the concurrence of the 
Chief Justice, otherwise directs, such judges of the riew High Court, not 
les'> 
than t\•io in nun1ber, as th~ 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, ~s the Chief Justice may direct, the jurisdiction and po\.ver 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 cf c~(ses arising in the said areas shall be heard at Allahabad. 
Respcndent 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 I_ ucknow Bench of the Allahab'1d High Court had no j'urisdiction to 
entertain and decide the writ petition No. 750 of 1964 filed by the appellant. 
hecausc the dispute aro~e at Bareilly in Rohilkhand Division, which was within 
the exclu&ive jurisdiction of the All~habad High Court. sitting at Allahabad, and 
it had nothing to do with the Oudh territory. 
The matter wa<; referred to the 
Full Bench. 
Writ Petition No. 470 of 1971 filed in the High Court at Lucknow and Cri-
n1inal Revision JSo. 270 of 1973 filed in the High Court at Allahabad were abo-
referred 10 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 ca.•e falling \.vithin the jurisdiction of Judges ut Lucknow should) 
be pre<;ented at Lucknow and not at Allahabad. 
(2) H0'1.'ever. if such a case is presented at Allahab<l!d 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 
,\1lahahaJ, 6· direction shoL!ld be m1de to the High Court Office t<> 
transmit the papers of the case to Lucknow, 
2-L925SupCl/75 
506 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1976] 1 .s.c.R. 
· (3) A case pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Judges at Luckno,y an.d 
(4) 
presented before the Judges at Allahabad ::annot be decided by tbe 
Judges at Allahabad in the absence of an order contemplated bv --
the second proviso to Article 14 of the Amalgamation Order. 1948~ 
The expression ''in respect of cases arising in such areas in Oudh'' 
used in the first proviso to Article 14 of the High Court (Amalgama-
tion) Order, 1948, refers to legal proceedings. including civil cases, 
crin1inal cases, petitions under Articles 226, 227 and 228 of the Con-
stitution 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 judg!:nent 
in such areas in Oudh as the Chief Justice may direct. The expres-
sion .. arising in such areas in Oudh" refers to 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.