RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 743 · Decided: 15-12-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
DECEMBER I 5, 2000 
[R.C. LAHOTI ANDSHIVARAJ V. PATIL] 
B 
Practice and Procedure: 
Acting Chief Justice of a High Court issuing an order defining where 
the cause of action shall be deemed to have arisen in writ case-Tenability C 
of-Held, the Chief Justice of the High Court has not been conferred with the 
legislative competence to define cause of action or to declare where it would 
be deemed to have arisen so as to lay down artificial or deeming test for 
determining territorial jurisdiction over an individual case or class of cases-
Whether or not a case arises in a district lying within the jurisdiction of D 
bench seat, is a question to be decided judicially, in case to case, and not 
by an administrative order of the Chief Justice made generally-States 
Reorganisation Act, 1956--Sections JO, 49(2), 51(1), 51(2), 54, 57-High 
Court of Rajasthan (Establishment of a Permanent Bench at Jaipur) Order, 
1976-----Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949--Section 44(2)_ 
Jurisdiction : 
E 
Territorial Jurisdiction in a state carved out between the principal seat 
and the permanent bench seat-Provision in the Constitution for exerc1~·e of 
territorial jurisdiction in a writ petition by a High Court- Application of. to 
functioning of the bifurcated territorial jurisdiction-Held, in case of a dispute F 
arising whether an individual case or cases should be filed and heard at 
principal seat or permanent seat, the same has to be found out by seeing in 
which district the cause of action can be said to have arisen and then 
exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution-- -Constitution 
of India, 1950----Article 226. 
G 
Words and Phrases: 
'Cause of action ' Meaning of 
The present State of Rajasthan came into being in accordance with the 
States Reorganisation Act, 1956. Subsequently, the President of India directed B 
743 
744 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A Jodhpur to be the principal seat of the new High Court for the State of 
Rajasthan. Initially, the Chief Justice of the State established a temporary 
Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur. Eventually, the President 
issued an order for establishment of a permanent Bench of the Rajasthan 
High Court at Jaipur. Subsequently, the then Acting Chief Justice of the High 
B Court ofRajasthan issued an order carving out jurisdiction between the cases 
to be heard at Jodhpur principal seat and the Jaipur Bench seat. Later on, 
the Acting Chief Justice issued yet another order substituting a new 
explanation defining where the cause of action shall be deemed to have arisen 
in a writ case. 
C 
The aforesaid orders of the Acting Chief Justice were challenged in a 
writ petition filed before the High Court It was submitted that the explanation 
inserted in the order of the Acting Chief Justice was ultra vires the powers 
of the Chief Justice; that the State Reorganisation Act, the Presidential Order 
and no other provision of law authorises the Chief Justice to define where a 
cause of action in a writ case would be deemed to have arisen so as to determine 
D where it would be filed. The High Court upheld the aforesaid pleas and directed 
the explanation issued by the Acting Chief Justice to be struck down. Hence, 
the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
E 
HELD : I.I. The Chief Justice of the High Court has not been conferred 
with the legislative competence to define cause of action or to declare where 
it would be deemed to have arisen so as to lay down artificial or deeming test 
for determining territorial jurisdiction over an individual case or class of 
cases. The permanent Bench at Jaipur has been established by the Presidential 
Order issued under sub-section(2) of Section 51 of the States Reorganisation 
F Act. The territorial jurisdiction of the permanent Bench at Jaipur is to be 
exercised in respect of the cases arising in the specified districts. Whether 
the case arises from one of the specified districts or not so as to determine 
the jurisdictional competence to hear by reference to territory bifurcated 
between the principal seat and the Bench seat, shall be an issue to be decided 
G in an individual case by the judge or judges hearing the matter if a question 
may arise in that regard. The impugned explanation appended to the Order of 
the Chief Justice runs counter to the Presidential Order and in a sense it is 
an inroad in

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