[2009] 11 S.C.R. 467
PRESIDENT, PANCHAYAT UNION COUNCIL
v.
P.K. MUTHUSAMY & OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No.4774 of 2009)
JULY 27, 2009
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND ASHOK
KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.]
4
PUBLIC PREMISES:
Allotment of accommodation for court - High Court
directing a particular building belonging to State Government
to be allotted for Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court - Held:
It was not within the jurisdiction of High Court to direct the
A
B
c
::l
Government to allot a particular land or building for the
D
purpose -
High Court can only make a request to
Government in this regard - There must be restraint on the
"-
part of judiciary on these matters - Order of High Couf( set
:!
aside - Chief Secretary to the State Government requested
to discuss the matter with Registrar General of the High Court E .
so as to resolve the problem ~ Judicial restraint .!.
Administration of justice ..
Divisional Manager, Aravali Gold Club & Another vs.
Chander Hase & Another, (2008) 1 SCC 683, Common
...
Cause vs. Union of India, (200a) 5 Sec· 511, relied on.
F
Case Law Reference:
(2008) 1 sec 683
(2008) 5 sec 511
relied on
relied on
para 5
para 5
CIVIL AP.PELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
4774 of 2009.
From the Judgment & Order dated 19.2.2008 of the High
G
467
H
468
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 11 S.C.R.
A Court of Judicature at Madras in W.P. No. 30663 of 2007.
B
c
N. Shoba and Sri Ram J Thalapathy for the Appellants.
V. Prabhakar (for Revathy Raghavan) for the
Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered
ORDER
Leave granted.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants.
This Appeal, by grant of special leave, has been filed
against the impugned judgment of the High Court of Madras
0 dated 19th February, 2008.
It appears that some accommodation was required for the
District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court at Pennagaram
Taluk, Dharmapuri District, Tamil Nadu, By the impugned order,
the High Court has directed that the old Block Development
E Office building shall be allotted for the aforesaid Court.
In our view, it was not within the jurisdiction of the High
Court to pass the aforesaid Order. We can understood t-he High
Court's concern th~' there should be proper accommoda~ion
F for the Munsifs Court, but for that purpose the High Court can
only make a request to the Government and not direct the
Government to allot or give a particular land or building which
belongs to the Government or to anyone else. This Court has
been repreatedly saying that the judiciary should not ordinarily
G encroach into the domain of the exectuive or legislature vide
Divisional Manager, Aravali .Gold Club & Another vs.
Chander Hass & Another, (2008) 1 SCC 683, Common
Cause vs. Union of India, (2008) 5 SCC 511, etc. There must
be restraint in these matter on the part of the judicaiary. We
H are confindent that if the judiciary makes a request to the
r
PRESIDENT, PANCHAYAT UNION COUNCIL v. P.K.
469
MUTHUSAMY & ORS.
1·
Government, the Government will consider that request with
A
great respect and take suitable steps for the smooth functioning
of the Court. However, but in such matters, the Court cannot
"""'
direct the government to allot a particular land or building for
that purpose.
B
Accordingly, we accept this appeal; set aside the
impugned judgment of the High Court and request the Chief
Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu to discuss the matter with the
Registrar General of the High Court so as to reslove the
problem as early as possible, preferably within a period of two
C
months' from today. No order as to costs.
Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Chief
Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu as well as Registrar General of
the Madras High Court.
R.P.
Appeal allowed.
D
Lex