STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus NARAYAN SHAMRAO PURANIK AND OTHERS

Citation: [1983] 1 S.C.R. 655 · Decided: 25-10-1982 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

j 
' 
'· 
STATB OF MA_HARASHTRA· 
'" 
NARAYAN SHAM RAO PURA NIK AND OTHERS 
Oc_tober 25, 1982 . 
[A.P. _SEN, E.S. VENll:ATARAMIAH AND R.B: MISR~, JJ.] '·' 
. States Reor!fanization Act, 1956-S ub-s. (3) of s. 51-Powtr of Chief 
Justice to appoint any place other than principal seat for sittfng1 of Judges and 
division Courti-Scope and effect. 
\ 
States Reorganisation A.ct, 1956-Permanent pieAce of legislation-Provisions 
of sub-ss. (2) and (3) of s; 51 not ebbed out by lapse of time. 
. ' 
Interpretation of statutes-A statute can be· abrogated only by expre.ss or 
implied repeal-Cannot become inoperative by lapse of time. 
. ' 
'-r ii 
Letters Patent aut~orising establishment of High Courts-"EreCt" and 
tsfab/ish"-M•anlng of. 
Sub-s. (3) of s. 51 of the States Reorganiz~tion Act, i9S6, Provides' that not~ 
withstanding anything contaiiled in sub·s. (l) or sub-s. (2) thereof tlfe Judges and 
division Courts of the High Court of a new State may also sit at .such other place 
or places in that State as the Chief .Justice may, with the approval or the 
Governor, appOint. 
-
Prior to the constitution of the States Reorganisation Comalis~ion,. leaders 
of political parties from the MarathiAspeaking areas in the country bad signed 
an agreement called the 'Nagpur Pact' which ulti~ately formed the bisis,.for the 
creation of the Maharashtra State. Clause (7)' of this agreement stipulated·that 
...,_~ 
the· provision with regard to the estabUshment Of a permanent Bench oftbe Higb 0 
, 
~~~ Court at Nagpur shall apply mutatis mutandis to the Marathwada region. 
The. 
\States ·Reorgai:i:isation Act, 1956 brought -into. being the new State of. Bombay with 
effect from November 1, 1956. By virtue of sub-s.-(1) ofs.-49, the existing High· 
, .. 
· Court of Bombay was d~m~d to be the High- Court for the New State of 
Bombay and, ~Ya Presidential Order issued under sub·s. (1) of s. 51, Bombay 
w_as declared to be its· ·principal seat. The then Chief Justice issued an order 
under sub~s. {3) of s. 51 appointing Nagpur to be a place at which th~ Judges and-
division Courts of the High Court would also· sit with effect from November 1, 
1956. The Bench at Nagpur continued to furiction till May l, 1960 when the · 
State ·was bifUrcated into Maharashtra and Gujarat and s. 41 of the Bombay' 
ReorganiSation Act. 1960 provided "for the establishment of a permanent Bench at 
Nagpur. 
Due to the Continued demand of the people of Marathwada re~on and 
the'. passing of a unanimous resolution. in suppoit by the Legislative Assembly the 
A 
·c 
F . 
G 
H 
B 
c 
D 
B 
F 
G 
H 
656 
SUPkl!MB C<!UR1 kl!PORTS 
[1983] l s.c.P. 
State Government recom~ended to the Central Government in 1978 that a 
permanent Bench Of the High Court be established at Aurangabad under sub-
s. (2) uf s. Sl and simultaneously made preparations. in consultation With the 
Chief Justice for setting up the Bench. However, when it· became evident that 
the Central Government would take time in reaching a decision_ on-the proposal,, 
it was decided, in view of the preparations made and the mounting expectations 
of the people, that, pending the, establishment of a permanent Bench under sub-
s. (2).ofS 51, resort be had to the provisions of sub-s. (3) thereof. Accordingly, 
·on August 27, 1981, the Chief Justice, with the prior approval oftbe Governor of 
the State, issued an Order under sub-s. (3) of s. 51 appointing Aurangabad a:s a 
place at which the JudgeS and division Courts of th~ High Court of Judicature at 
Bombay may also sit. 
The respondents challenged the validity of the Order and the High Court 
set aside the same on the.following grounds: 
1. The Act being·of a transitory nature~ the· exercise or the power under 
suf>..s. (3) ors. SI after a lapse of 26 years was constitutionally impermissible. 
2. There was no nexus betweeD the pu
1
rpose and objCcts of the Act and 
the setting up. of-Aurangabad as an additional venue for sittings of Judges and 
divisiO~ Courts of the High Court. 
. 
3. After the bifur:cation of the bilingual State of Bombay, the power of 
the Chief Justice under· sub-s. (3) of s. 51 would bo · 1onger be exercised as the 
State of Maharasli1ra was nOt a 'new State' within the meaning of s. Sl rcaci with 
s. 2(1) of the Act. 
4. 'The Order was bad . in law as if bad brought about a territorial 
bifurcation of the High Court. Uridersub-s: (3) of s. 51 the Chief Justice had 
neither ·the, power to establish a Bench at any place nor the power to issu

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