UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus S.P. ANAND AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] 3 S.C.R. 1046 · Decided: 07-08-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Case Allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
v. 
S.P. ANAND AND ORS. 
AUGUST 7, 1998 
B 
[S.C. AGRA WAL, DR. A.S. ANAND AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, I 950 : 
Articles I 36 and 226--Rule nisi-Jssuance of -By High Court-To 
C parties impleaded as respondents in writ petition-Appeal against-Before 
Supreme Court-Entertainment of -Held: The question whether the writ 
petition prima facie raises arguable or triable issues can be agitated before 
the Supreme Court in order to assail the High Court's order. 
Article 226--Writ petition-Maintainability of -Rule nisi-Issuance 
D of-Held: High Court should be satisfied that a prima facie case is made 
out-If the High Court finds that the petition raises no triable issues it has 
to be dismissed in limine. 
Articles 130 and 226--Writ Petition-Maintainability of-Triable or 
arguable issues-Raising of in writ petition-Writ petition filed before 
E High Court sought direction appointing Indore (MP) as one of the places 
where Supreme Court should commence sitting- Notice issued to 
respondents in the writ petition-Correctness of-Held: No court has 
jurisdiction to grant such relief-Since writ petition raises no arguable or 
triable issues-Hence issue of notice not called for and the writ petition 
F liable to be dismissed in limine-At the stage of preliminary hearing of a 
writ petition, High Court should be cautious and guard against the practice 
of using the court as a forum for gaining cheap publicity. 
Article I 30-Scope of-Held: An enabling provision and does not 
. cast a mandatory obligation on the CJJ to appoint a place or places other 
.G than Delhi as the seat of Supreme Court-This requires a policy decision 
by the CJI and approval of the President-No court can give direction to 
CJJ or President to exercise power under Art. 130 for appointing any 
place other than Delhi for the sitting of the Supreme Court. 
The respondents filed & writ petition before the High Court seeking 
H a direction for appointing Indore as one the places where the Supreme Court 
1046 
c
U.0.1. v. S.P. ANAND 
1047 
shall commence sittings. The President was impleaded as a respondent to the A 
writ petition notwithstanding the bar contained in Article 361 of the 
Constitution, since according to the petitioner, the said bar does not preclude 
the President from being joined as a party. Reference was made to the 
decision of a Special Bench of Seven Judges to this Court in Shamsher Singh 
v. State of Punjab and Anr .. AIR (1974) SC 2192, and the correctne!ls of the 
said decision was assailed but the reason why t~e said decision should be B 
reviewed was not indicated. As regards Article 130 the case of the respondents 
was that the said provision postulated that the Supreme Court should sit 
throughout the country and therefore at Indore also and that the omission 
to provide for sittings of Supreme Court or nearby places, viz., Dewas, Ujjain, 
Mahow, Dhar, was ex facie unconstitutional and discriminatory. It was C 
claimed that Article 130 contained a binding mandate, which could not be 
disregarded. The submission of the respondents was that under Article 130 
a mandatory duty had been cast on the Chief Justice of India to appoint a 
place or places other than Delhi in various parts of the country for the seat 
of the Supreme Court and that failure on the part of the Chief Justice of 
India to carry out this mandatory duty could be enforced by seeking D 
appropriate direction from the High Court under Article 226 of the 
Constitution. It was urged that the said power conferred on the Chief Justice 
of India under Article 130 is justiciable and is subject to judicial review by 
the courts. The respondents had stated that the writ petition was not in the 
nature of Public Interest Litigation, but it was for enforcement of the individual E 
rights of the respondents who had agricultural and urban properties situate 
at and around Indore. It was stated that the omission to provide sittings at 
Indore was causing hostile discrimination between citizens and residents of 
New Delhi and those residing in and around Indore like the respondents on 
account of absence of availability of the judicial remedy under Article 32 
of the Constitution. Respondent No. 2 was practising as an Advocate at F 
Indore and his grievance was that because of omission to provide sittings of 
the Supreme Court at Indore he was suffering loss of practice and resultant 
financial loss as compared with the Advocates at New 

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