Holding

Section 51(3) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, remains a valid, exercisable power for the Chief Justice to appoint additional places for the sitting of Judges and Division Courts of a High Court, and such appointment does not create a permanent bench or territorial bifurcation.

Summary

The State of Maharashtra sought to establish a permanent bench of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad, but pending central approval, the Chief Justice issued an order under s.51(3) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, appointing Aurangabad as a place where Judges and Division Courts may also sit. The High Court struck down the order, holding that the power had lapsed, was unrelated to the Act’s purpose, and could not create a bench. The Supreme Court reversed this, holding that s.51(3) confers a continuing power exercisable from time to time, that the appointment is within the Act’s scope, and that it does not amount to a territorial bifurcation or creation of a permanent bench. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the order of the Chief Justice upheld.

Issues considered

The power of the President under s.51(2) or of the Chief Justice under s.51(3) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, can it be exercised after a lapse of time?
The appointment of Aurangabad under s.51(3) is it connected to the reorganisation of States or lacks nexus with the purpose of the Act?
The power under s.51(3) includes authority to establish a permanent bench or to issue administrative directions for filing and institution of proceedings?

Legislation cited

Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960s. 28(1), s. 28(2), s. 41
Constitution of Indias. Article 130, s. Article 3, s. Article 4, s. Article 74
General Clauses Act, 1897s. 14
Government of India Act, 1935
Indian High Courts Act, 1861
States Reorganisation Act, 1956s. 49, s. 51(1), s. 51(2), s. 51(3), s. 69

Subjects

States Reorganisation ActHigh Court benchJurisdictionLegislative intentDesuetudeTemporary benchChief Justice powerPermanent benchConstitutional law

Judgment

'·
A

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. \
·c
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

j
' 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 F.
, ~~~ 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 G
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.
H
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
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,
B ·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:
c
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.
1
2. There was no nexus betweeD the pu 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. .
D 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
B neither ·the, power to establish a Bench at any place nor the power to issue
administrati.ve directions for filing or instit_ution of-procee<fings at such a place.

AJlowiOg the al)peaJ,

HELD : The Act is 8. permanent piece of legislation enacted by
Parliament under Articles 3 and 4 or the Consiitution. Section 14 of the GenCral
•
F Clauses.Act> 1897, provides that, where, by any Central Act or Regulation, any
power-is·conferred, then, unless a different intention appears, tbat power may be
·-exercised from time to time as occasion arises. A statute can be abrogated only
by express or implied repeal. It cannot fall in.to desuetude or become inoperatiVe
through obsolescence or by lapse of time.. The powers conferred on the President
"' '
and the Chief Justice under sub~Ss. (2) and {3) of s. 51 arei intended to be exercised
from ti!De to time as occasion arises, as there· is no. intention to the contrary
G manifest~d in the Act. The assumption that these provisions have ebbed out by
lapse of time is plainly contrary to the ineaning··and effect ofs. 69 of the Act
which in terms prOvides that Part V -which contains s. SI shall have •. effect subject
to any pro-vision that may be made on or after the appointed .day with respect
to the High Court of any State by the Legislature or any other authority having
power to make such pfovision. Further, the opening words of s. 41 of Ote
H Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960 manifest a clear Jf:gislative intention rO
preserve the continued existence of the provisions contained in s." 51 of the States
Reorga~isation Act, 1956. [669 B·C, 668 E-G, 670 A-BJ
/'
MAHARASHTRA V. N.s: PURANIK 651
R. v. London County Council, L.R. [19.ll] 2 K.B .. 215 referred to. A
2. -It cannot be said. that the-impugned Order is Dot directly connected
with the reorganisation of States: Ther~ has been a Jong-standing demand for
the establishment of a. pCrmaneot Bench of the Bombay High Court at
Aurangabad. A solen:in assurance in this behalf had been given to the people of
Marathwada region by cl. (7) of the . 'Nagpur Pact'. Under the scheme Or the
Act it would appear that having constituted a High Court for the new State Or B
:Bombay and conferred jurisdiction on" it und~r s. 52 )n relation to the . territories
of the new State, Parliament left it to the various high Constitutional functionaries .
designated in S. 51 to determine the place where the principal seat o_f the :High
Court should be located and places whe,re permanent Bench or Benches of the
High Court may be established, or where the Judges - a:nd d~Visi6n Courts of the
High Court may also sit. While Nagpur was given a Bench by an order issued
under sub-s. (3) of s. 51 and the arrangement made permanent by s. 41 of thi:i
BOmbay ReorganiSation .Act, 1960, ·the proposal for se"tting up a pe"rmanent .
c
Bench at Aurangabad is . still under the active considerat.ioil of the CCntral
Government. [670 D, 67,l H, 672 A-B,i661 B, 670 H, 671 F·G, 672 A]'

3. The expression "iiew State.. occurring in sub-s. '(1) of s. 49 of the Act is
defined ins. 2·(1) to mean "a· State-formed un4er the provisionf of Part ll". The
State of Bombay was a 'new State' forlned under s. 8 of the Act which occurs 0
in Part II. The High Court of Bombay Was the High Court foi the ·new- St~te of
Bombay within the meaning of:sub-s. (1) of s. 49 and therefore the prOvisions-of.
s. St are still applicable. Sub-s. (1) of s. 28 of thC Bombay ·Reorganisation Act,
1960 provides that as from May 1,-1960, there shall be a separate High Court
for the State of Gujarat and that the High cOurt of Bombay· shall become the
High cOurt for the State-of J\1ahara·shtra and sub-s. (2) thereof provides that
the Principal seat of the lGujarat High Court shall be at such place as the E
President may, by notified order, appoint. It is significant. thflt the 'Act contaiils
Do similar provisio·n with rega'rd to. the prinCipal scat of the High Court of .
Bombay. That -being so, the continued existence of the principal seat of the ·
Bomba)' High Court at Bombay is still governed by sub-s. (I) of s. 51. If.there
· is continued existenCe of sub~s. (1)- ·of s, SI in relation to'· the principal seat of
·~ . .the High .Court for a new. State, a fortiori there is to an equal cte8ree, the
continued existence of the provisions contained in sub-ss. (2) and (3) ofs. 51.
-~ That ~he Legislature pre-supp~sed th.e continued existe~ce of s. 51 · in relation to
F
the High Court of Bombay ·IS clear from the opening words of ·s. 41 of the
. . _ ~- Bombay Reorganisation Att, 1960 which provides for tbe setting up of a
J ~ pcrDiance:t Bench of the High Court at Nagplir. That section begins with the
words "Without prejudice to the provisions of s. ·SJ of the States R.Corganisation
Act, 1956". Tb.us while enacting thit section,. Parliament retained in tact the
po\ver conferred on the President of ·India. and_ the Chief Justice under s. 51 of
G
the States Reorganisation Act, 1Q56. (666 D, 665 H, 666 E-G, .657 C-E]

4. (a) The Constitution and stmcture of a High Court depends on the
.. statute creating it. It is clear from sub-ss. (1) ·and (ij of s. 51 that the President
•bas the P.ower to 8ppoint the principal seat of the High Court for a new State
and also establish a permanent Bench of that High Court at one or more places H
within the State. Under these provisions t_he President has ·the power not only
to, define ·the territorial jurisdiction of the permanen't Bel;lch in rc!atioil to the
658 SIJl>REME cOIJRt iUll>ORTS (1983] 1 S.C-11.

A principal Seat but also confer on it exclusive jurisdiCtion' to hear cases arising in
the territory falling within its jurisdiction. The ·creation of a permanent Bench
under sub-s. (2) of s. 5j must therefore, briilg about a territorial bifurcation of
the High Court. In contrast, the power of the Chief Justice to appoint, under
-
sub-s. (3) of s. 51, the sittings of the Judges and Division Courts of the High
Court at places other th8.n the place of the principal seat .or the permanent Bench,
is in the unquestioned domain of the Chief Justice, the only condition being that
8 he must act Justice, the only condition being that he ·must act with the ai)proval
of the Governor. It is basically an internal matter pertaining to the High Court.
The. Chief Justice has full power, authority and jurisdiction in the matter of ·
1
allocation of the business of the High Court and this flows not only from the
provisions contained in sub-s. (3) of s. SJ. but inheres' in him in the very nature
of things. The non obstante clause contained in sub-s. (3) of s. 51 gives an over-
riding effect to the power of the Chief Justice. There is no territorial bifurcation
c of the High Court merely because the Chief Justice directed undCr sub-s. (3) of
.s. 51 that the Judges and division Courts shall also sit at Aurangabad. The
JudgCs and division Courts at Aurangabad are part of the same High Court and
they exercise jurisdiction as Judges of the High Court of BombaY at Aurangabad.
[673 G, 675 H, 676 A·C, D-H, 677 A]

Seth Manji Dhana v. Commissioner. of Income-tax, Bombay & Ors. (C.A.
No. 995 of 1957 decided by the High Court of Bombay on July 22, 1958),
D apprOved. "
... Manickam Pillai Subbayya Pillai v. Assistant Registrar, High Court of
'Kera/a, Trivandrum, AIR (1958) Kerala 188; overruled.

(b) ·It is difficult to· comprehend how the Chief Justice can arrange for
E the sittings of the Judges and Division Courts at a particular place unless there is ·
a seat at that place. It may be true in the juristic sense that the seat of the High
Court.must mean ''the principal se3.t of such High Court" i.e. the place where
' tbe High Court is competent to transact every kil1d of business from any part of
the territories within its jurisdiction. It is impossible to· conceive of a High
-Court without a· seat being assigned to it. · The place where its jurisdiction:can
be invo~ed is an essential and indispensable feature of the legal inStitution known
F as 'Court~. Where there is only one seat of the High Court it must necessarily
have all the attributes o\ the Princip.al seat. But where the High Court bas more
than one ~eat, one of them may or may not be the principal seat according to ,,.,
the legislative scheme. When the Chief Justice makes an order in terms of sub- ·
s. (3) of s. 51 that Judges and. Division Courts of the High Court shall also sit at
such other plaCc, thE_High Court in the generic sense has also a seat at such other
place. It is both sound reason and commonsense to say that the.High Court of
G Bombay is located at its principal. seat at Bombay, but it also has a seat at the
permanent·:aencb at Nagpur. Besides administering Justice, the High Court Qas
the.administrative control over the sUbordinate judiciary in the State. The High
Court must necessarily carry on the administrative 'functions from the principal
seat but it m{y have more than one seat for transaction of judicial business.
' [673 A·Gi
H
Na!iruddin v. State ·Transport Appellate Tribunal, [1976) I S.C.R. 505;
distinguished.
MAHARASHT1lA v. N,$, PURANllC (Sen;/.) 659
(c) Provisions similar to sub·•· (3) of s. SI of tbo Act existed in almost A
au the LetterS Patent or the Acts under which'the various High Courts have been
c~nstituted. Clause 31 in eaCh of the Letter& Patent under,which the High C~tirts -
of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay were established provided' for "exercise of
ju!isdiction elsewhere than at 1 the ordinary place of sitting of. the High Court''
WhCnever a High Court was established by Letters Patent under s. 1 of the Indian
High Courts Act, 1861, or under s. 113 ,of the Government of India Act, 1935.
the High Court ~as 'erecteq and established' at a particuJar place mentioned in .B
the Letters Patent. -The expression 'erect and est3blish' in .relation to a_ High
Court meant nothing more than to indicate the ~stablishment of the High Court
at a particular place where the High Court was competent to transact evel'y kind
of business arising from any part of the territory wi1hin its jurisdiction.
~· 1 (674 C, 675 F, 674 E-F, 615 B·C]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3379 of 1981 c
' and order dated
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment
tlie 14th December, 1981 of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition
No. 1104 of 1981 ~

. F.S. Nariman, Arvind V. Savant and M.N. Shroff for · the D
Appellant.

A.L. Settwal, and Mrs. Jayshree Wad for Respondent No. J.

D.11.. Dhanuka, La/it Bhasin, Vinay Bhasin, Sura} M. Shah and
Vin'eet Kumar for Respondent No. 2. " l!l
· L.N. Sinha,- Attorney (}eneral, M.K. Banerjee, Additional
, Solicitor ·General . of India and Miss A. Subhashini for Respondent
No. 3. "
.. S.B. ' Bhasme, S. V. Tambwekar and R.G. Bhadekar for F
Interve:ners 1-6.
' ,,! .

V.N. Ganpule for Intervener No. 7.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

.. SEN, J. This appeal· by special leave· is directed against the G
judgment and order of the Bombay High Court dated-·-December 14,
1981. By 1its judgment the High ·court struck down an order dated
August 27, 1981 by which the Chief Justice of the Bombay High
Court, in exercise of his powers under sub·s. (3) of s.. 51 of the States
Reorganization Act, 1956 ·(Act XXXVII of l 956i (for short 'the H
Act') with. the prior approval of the Governor of Maharashtra,
directed that the Judges and Division Courts of the High Court of
660 SUPRl!MB COURT REPORT [1983) I &,C.R.

A Bombay shall also sit at Aurangahad with effect from August 27,
'1981 for the disposal of cases arising out of the Marathwada region
. '
of the State of Maharashtra.

By an order dated May 4, -1982 we allowed the appeal and set
aside the judgment of the High Court since it did not appear -to us
B that the impngncd order _issued by the Chief Justice suffered from
any infirmity, legal or constitutional. ·.We now proceed to give our·
reasons.

By virtue of sub-s. (I) of s. 49, the High Court of Bombay
exercising immediately before the appointed day i.e. November I,
c 1956, jurisdiction in relation to the. existing State of Bombay, was
·deemed to be the High· Court for the new State of Bombay constitut-
s.
ed under sub-section (1) of 8 ·of the Act. Immediately before the
appointed day, i.e. on October 27, 1956, the Central Government
while telegraphically communicating to the then Chief Justice
{Chagla, C.J.) the issue of a Presidential Order under sub-s. (I) of
s. 51 of the Act appointing- Bombay to be the principal seat of the
High Court for the new State of Bombay with effect from November
I, 1956, conveyed that as from· that date the High Court shall
function only at that place unless the Chief Justice issued an order
under sub-s. (3) of s. 51 of the Act that temporary Benches may also
function at other places. the then Chief Justice was advised that he·
E should issue such notification on the appointed day, i.e. November
I, 1956, for the establishment of Circuit Benches at Nagpur and
Rajkot with a view to preserve the continuity of judicial administra·..
tion, since the High Court of Madhya Pradesh had its principal scat'
at Nagpur and the High Court of Saurashtra at Rajkot, prior. to the
appointed day.. The then Chief Justice accordingly issued an order
•
F under sub-s. (3) of s. 51 of the Act with the prior approval of the _/',,...
Governor by which he appointed Nagpur and Rajkot to be places ' /
- at which the Judges and Division Courts of the Bombay High Court · ·
would also sit with effect from November 1, 1956. · The two Benches
at Nagpur and Rajkot coniinued to function till May I, 1960 when
the bilingual State of Bombay was bifurcated· into two. separate
G
States-The ·state of Maharashtra ard the State of Gu)arat-by the
Bombay Reorganization Act, 1960 {Act XI of 1960).

Prior to the constitution of the States Reorganization
H Commission in December 1953, leaders of political parties from the
Marathi-speaking areas in the Vidarbha and Marathwada regions
and of the then State of Bombay signed an agreement or pa~t called
MAHARASHTRA v. N.S. PVRANIK (Sen, J.) 661

the Nagpur pact on September 23, .1953 which formed a basis for
joint representation to the States Reorganization Commission and
was the basis for the ·formation of Maharashtra' as a new State for
the Marathi-speaking people of the former State of .Bombay, the
Vidarbha region of the former State of Madhya Pradesh, and the
Marathwada region of the erstwhile State of Hyderabad. Cl. (7) of
the Nagpur Pact provides that the provision with regard to the B
establishment of a permanent Bench of. the High Court at Nagpur
shall apply mutatis mutandis fo the Marathwada region.

It appears that d~e to continued demand of the people of
Mara.thwada region for the establishment of a permanent Bench of
the.High Court at Aurangabad under sub's1 (2) of s. 51 of,the Act, c
the State Government first took up, the issue with the then Chief
Justice (Kantawala, C.J.) in 1977. On March 22, 1978, the State
Legislative. Assembly passed a unanimous resolution supporting a
demand for the establishment of a permanent Bench ·of the High
. Court at Aurangabad co the effect : ·
D
1 "With a view to save huge expenses and to reduce
the inconvenience of the people of the Marathwada and
Pune regions in connection with legal proceedings, this
Assembly recommends to the Government . to make a
request to the President to establish a permanent Bench of
the Bofubay High Court having jurisdiction in Mar~thwada E .•
arid Pune· regions, one·: at Aurangabad and the other at
Pune."

The said demand for the constitution of a permanent Bench of the
'• High Court at Aurangabad was supported 'by the State Bar Council
·~ of Maharashtra, .Advocates' Association of Western India, several F
~ bar associations and people in .general. It is necessary here to
· mention that the resolution-at originally .moved made a demand for
the setting up of a permanent Bench of the ·High' Court of Bombay
at Aurangabad .for the Marathwada region, and· there w~s no
reference to Pune which was added. by way cif _amendment: Initially,
the State Governme,nt made a .recommendation to the Central G
Government in 1978 for the establishment of two permanent Benches
under sub-s. (2) of s. 51 of the Act, one at Aurangabad and the other
at Pime, but later in f981 confined its recommendation to Anranga·
bad alone. · ' · ·
H
The State Government thereafter ·took a Cabinet decision in
January, 1981 to establish a permanent Bench of the High Court at
662 SUPltBMB COURT RBPOP.1s [1983] I S.C.R.

A Aurangabad and this was conveyed by the Secretary to the Govern- ·
men! of Maharashtra, Law & Judiciary Department, communicated '
by his letter dated February 3, 1981 to the· Registrar and he was
requested, with the permission_ of the Chief Justice, to submit
proposals regarding accommodation for ·the Court and residential
bungalows for the Judges, staff, furniture etc. necessary for setting up
B a
the Bench. As result of this communication, the Chief Justice
wrote to the Chief . Minister on February 26, I 981 signifying his
consent to the establishment of a permanent Bench at Aurangabad.
After adverting to the fact that his predecessors had opposed such a
move· and had indicated, amongst other things, that such ·a step
c involved, as it does, breaking up of the integrity of the institution
and the Bar, which would necessarily impair the quality and quantity
of the disposals, he nonetheless went on to say : ·

"As against that I a,m personally aware of the
D difficulties to which the litigant public of Marathwada is
subjected to, in regard to their causes in this High Court
since the Marathwada area became a part of the Bombay ,\
Siate with effect from 1.11.1956, resulting virtually in the
stifling of the genuine litigation therefrom: Grievances .on
this count are many and genuine to my knowledge.
Establishment and continued existence of the !lenches in
• E the High Courts of Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Bibar,
Kerala and a Bench at Nagpnr in our own State, make it
difficult for them to believe that their claim · for a Bench
al~ne is liable to b~ ignored because of any SQch view of
tqe Law Commission or the Jurists. This 'only goes to
deepen the bitterness and sense of injustice that is prevalent · -!
F · among thein."

It however became evident by the middle of June, 1981 that
the Central Government would take time in reaching a decisio'n on
the proposal for the estaf:>lishment of a permanent B.ench unde~ sub-
s. (Z) of s. SI of the Act at Aurangabad as the question involved a
G
much larger issue, viz. the principles to be adopted and the criterion
laid down for the establishment of ·permanent Benches of High
Courts gen_erally. This meant that there would be inevitable delay
in securing concurrence of the Central Government and the issuance ....
of a Presidential Notification under sub-s. (2) of s. 51 of the A,ct. On
H
June 11, 1981, the State Government accordingly took a _Cabinet
decision that pending the establishment of a permanent Bench under
MAHARASHTRA v. N.S. PURANIK (Sen, J.) 663

sub-s. (2) ofs. 51 of the Act at Aurangabad for the Maratbwadll. A
region, resort be bad to the prov_isions of. sub-s. (3) thereof. On
June 20, 1981· Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Law
and Judiciary Department wrote to ·the Registrar stating that there
was a possibility of the delay in securing concurrence of the Centra)
Governn;ient and the issuance of a notification by the P~esident
under sub-s. (2) of· s. 51 of the_ Act for the establishment of a B
permanent Bench at Aurangabad and in order·. to tide over the
difiiculty,.the· provisions of sub-s. (3) ofs. 51 of the Act may be·
~t'esorted to and he therefore requested the Chief Justice to favour the
Government with his ~iews in the matter a!an early date. On 'July
;5, 1981, the Law Se~ietary waited on the 'Chief ,Justice in tliat
connectioq. On July 7, 1981 the Chief Justice· wrote a letter to the.
c
: Chief Minister in which he stated' that the ~aw Secretary had
conveyed to him the dedsion of· the State Government to have a
:circuit B~Iich at Aurangabad under sub-s. (3) of s. 51 pending the
·decision of the Central Government to establish a permanent Bench
there under sub-s. (2)'.of s. 51 of the Act: The ·Chief Justice then · D
·added : · • • '·
·-
'~' . f I , I· · '

, '" "I agree that some such step is necess~ry i.n view of the·,
" , preparations made . by the· G9vernment at huge costs and·
;_
;.·}
·. - the mounting
.. expectations
.-
of the people
\
there." . .... , E
- ·~ .
·Rest of the letter deals with the problem of finding re~idential
" ~accom_modation for the Judges, staff, inc~ease ·in· strength of Judges
etc. . , . . ..,
'],.
"' . ' ,~ " , ' \!' i F
··on July 20, 1981, the Law· Secretary addressed a Jetter to the
Registrar requesting him to .. forward, with the permission of the
Chief ,Justice, proposal as 'is required under sub-s. (3). of s, 51 for
the setting up of. a Bench at Aurangabad. · In reply to the same, the
Registrar .by his letter dated July 24, 1981 conveyed that the Chief
Just.ice agreed· with the suggestion of tbe State Government that G
s.
·action had to be ·taken under sub-s: (3) of 51 of the Act fot which
the approval of the Governor was 11ecessary and he enclosed a copy
of the ,draft order °Which the Chief Justice proposed to issue under
0

sub-s. (3),- of s. 51 of the Act. On. August JO, 1981_; the Law Secretary
·Conveyed to the. Registrar the approval of.the Governor..On August
, 2J,.,J981, the Chief Justice issued an order gnd~r s11b"s. (3) of~· 5! ~f
\h.e Act to the effect ; .; r.
' ' .
SUPREME COURT REPoRTS [ t 983 I i s.c.il.

A "In exercise of the. powers conferred by suli-s. (3) of
s. 51 of the State Reorganization Act, 1956 (No. 37 of 1956)
and. all other powers enabling him in this behalf, the ...
Hon'ble the Chief Justice, with the approval of the Governor
. of Maharashtra, is pleased to appoint Aurangabad as a place
at which the Hon'ble Judges and Division Courts of the
8 High cOurt 9f Judicature at Bombay may also sit." •

The Jiigh Court has set aside the impugned notification issued
by the Chief Justice under sub-s. (3) of s. 51 of the Act on the
following.grounds, namely: (I) The impugned order issued by the
c ChiefJustice. under sub-s. (3) of s. 51 of the Act was not directly
connec!ed with or related to p~oblems ·arising out of the reorganiza-
tion of the States i.e. there is no nexus between ·the purpose and
objects of the Act and ihe setting up of. Aurangabad 'as a venue for
.additional seat of the High . Court, (2) .The provisions of the Act ·
and in par\icular of s. Si were not intended to be operative in-
D definitely and they were meant to be exercised either immediately ·
or .within a reasonable time and therefore the exercise of the power
by the Chief Justice under sub-s. (3) of s. 51 of the Act appointing.
Aurangabad as a place where the Judges and Division Courts of the
High ·court may also 'sit after a lapse of 26 years is constitutionally
impermissible, (3) The State of Maharashtra was not a new State
E within the meaning of s. 51 read with s. 2(1) of the Act after the •
bifurcation of the billingual State' of Bombay into the State of
Maharashtra and the newly constituted State of Gujarat under s. 3
of the Bombay Reorganization Act, 1960 and therefore the power of
the President of India to esta~lish a permanent Bench or Benches of
the High Court under sub-s. (2) of s. ·51 of the Act and that of the ~
F Chief Justice to appoint with the prior approvai of the Governor a
place .or places where the Judges' and the Division Courts o( the
High, Court ·may also sit under sub·s. (3) thereof, can no longer be
exercised, (4) The power conferred on the Chief JustiCe under sub·
s. (3) of s. 51 of the Act to appoint a place or places where t.he
Judges or ihe Division' Courts of the High Court inay also sit, does
••
G not include a power to establish a Bench or Benches at such places,
and he had no power or authority ' under sub-s. (3) of s. 51 of the
Act to issue administrative directions.for the filing or institution of
proceedings at such a place and (5) The impugned notification issued
by the Chief Justice nnder sub-s. (3) of s. 51 of the Act was a colour- .
H able exercise·of°power and therefore liable to be struck down. We
are afraid, the Hig4 ~Ollf! !!!Ii proceeded on wholly wrong
premises,
MAHARASHt~A V. N.S. PullANIK (&n, /;) · 66S

·Section 51 of the Act provides as follows : A

! -\
"SI. Principal seat. and othe.r places of sitting of High
Courts for new States.

(I) The principal seat of the High Court for a new, -
• State shall ·be at such place as the President may, B
by notifi~d order, appoint. ,
J
•
(2) The. President may, after consultation with the
Governor of a n~w State and the Chief Justice of
- ,. ' • - ' .> •

'r -the High Court for. that". State, by notified order, ..
·provide for the establis-hr'nent of a permanent bencl! ,
or benches of that ·Hight! Court at on~ or more
c
. . . ,_ '

placef within, the 1State other than. the prin.9ipal
.seat of
I -
.the High Court and- 'for'· any .
· matters
.,,.
connected
~ . "
therewith.
.

(3) No.iwithstanding _anything contained in, sub-. 0
section (I) or sub-section (2), the Judges and
Division. Courts of the High Court for a new State..
may also sit at : s11ch other place or places in that
State as the Chief Justice .may, with the approval. ·
. of the Governor, appo~nt." · •
~ - . {, . If
Three questions arise . for consideration in th.is. appeal : (I)
Whether the power. of the President under., sub-s. (Z) of s. SI o( ihe
Act or that of the Chief Justice of the High Court under sut:>-s. (3)
of s. SI of the Act, can no longer be exercised due to lapse of time'.
(2), Whether the exercise of power . by the Chief Justice unde~ .sub:
s, (3) of s. 51 of the Act appointing Aurangabad to be a place F
at which the. Judges and Division Courts . of the .High Court
~hall also sit is co-related to .the reorganization of the States, or .be
bas no nexu' with the object and. purposes sought to be achieved by
. the Act and is only a part of the· demand for decentralization of the
administration justice in general. (3) Whether the power of the Chief
s.
Justice under ·sub-s. (3) of 51 of the Act does not inclu!le a· power G
to establish a Ben.ch or Benches at such place or places carving out
territorial jurisdiction for such B~nchcs and authorising the filing or
institution of proceedings at such places .
•• ..
It.. is diaicult to agree with the High Court that the High Court .
pf !Jorn bay is.11ot the Hi~ Court of !I DQW State withi11 the meanin~

•
.
666· SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1983) I s.c.R.

A of sub·s. (I) of s. 49 of the Act, merely because the billingual
State · of Bombay was bifurcated into two separate States of
Maharashtra and Gujarat under s. 3 of the Bombay Reorganization
Act, 1960. Nor do we see any valid basis for tbe view taken by the
High Court that the power of the President to establish a permanent
Bencff or Benches of the High Court under sub-s. (2) of s. 51 of
B the Act or that of the Chief Justice to appoint, with the approval
of the Governor, a place or places where the Judges and Division
Courts may also sit under .sub-s. (3) of s. Sf of the Act, can no
....
longer be exercised, in relation to the High Couri of Bombay.
It was right by not disputed before us that the High Court 'of
Bombay was the High Court for the new State of Bombay
.,
c within' 'the meaning of sub·s. (1) of s. 49 of the Act and
therefore the provisions of s.' 51 of the Act ar~ still applicable.
That must be so because the High Court of Bombay owes its
principal seat at Bombay to the Presidentiai Order issued under
sub-s. (1) of s. 51 of the Act. ·The expression "new State"
occurring in sub•s .. (I) of s. 49 of the Act is defined in s. 2(i) to
D.
mea.n "a State formed under the provisions of Part II". The State
of Boinbay was a new State formed under s. 8 of the Act, which
occurs in Part II. The Bombay· Reorganization Act, 1960 (Act No.
XI of 196Ql which reconstituted the. erstwhile State of Bombay into
the State of Maharashtra and the State of Gujarat provides, inter
a/ia, by sub-s. (I) of s. 28 that, as from the appointed' day, i.e. May
I, 1960, there shall be a separate High Court for the State ·of
Gujarat and that the High Court of Bombay shall become the High
Court for the State of Maharashtra. Sub-s. (2) of s. 28 Cif that Act
provides that the principal seat of the Gujarat High Court shall be .
at such place as the President may, by notified order, appoint~ It iS
F rather significant that the Bombay Reorganization Act, 1960 contains
no similar provision with regard to the principal seat of the High
Court of Bombay. · That being so, the .continued existence of the
principal seat of the Bombay High Court at Bombay is still governed
by sub-s. (!) of s. 51 of the Act. This conclusion of ours is reinforced
by the opening words of s. 41 of that Act which provides for the
G setting up of a permanent bench of the Bombay High Court at
Nagpur, and it reads : ·

"41. Permanent Bench of Bombay High Court at
H Nagpur-Without prejudice to the provisions of s. 51 of
the States Reorganizatio,n Act, 1956, such Judges of the
Hil)h Co11rt 11t ~mbay, bein~ ,11ot Jess than three in
MAHARASHTRA v. N.S. PURANIK (Sen, J.) 667

number, as the Chief Justice· may from time to time A
..J nominate, shall sit at Nagpur in order to exercise the juris-
diction and power for the time being vested in that High
Court in respect of cases arising in the districts of Buldana,
Akola\ Amravati, Yeotmal, Wardha, Nagpur, Bhandara,
Chanda and Rajpura :
B
Provided that the Chi~f Justice may, in his dis-
cretion, order that any case arising in any such districts
shall be heard at Bombay."

The'legislative intent is clear· and explicit by the ~se of the c
words "Without prejudice to the provisions of s. 51 of the States
Reorganization Act, 1956". The legislature pre-supposed the conti·
nued existence of s. 51 of the Act in ·relation to ·the High Court of
Bombay. That shows that while enacting s.41 of the Act, Parliament
retained the power of the President of India both under sub-s. (I) D
and sub-s. (2) of s.51 of the A<;t and that of the Chief Justice under
-I sub-s. (3) thereof. If there is continued .existence of sub·s. (I). of
' s.51 of the Act in relation-to the principal seat of the High Court
for a new State, a fortiori, there is, to an equal degree, the continued,
existence of the provisions contained in sub-ss. (2) and (3) of s. SI
of the Act. Tbis is also clear from the provisions of s. 69 ·_of the E
Act which in terms provides. that Part V which contains s. 51 of the
Act shall have effect subject to any provision that may be made,
on or after the appointed day with respect to the High Court of a
new State, by the Legislature or any-other authority having power to
make such provision.
~- F
-'~. _ · Nor can we subscribe to the proposition that the power of, the
. ~esident under sub-s. (2) of s. 51 of the Act, or that of the Chief
.; (~ Jtistice of the High Court of a new Stat<: under sub·s. (3) of that
section, can no longer be exercised due to lapse of time. The High
Court is of the view that the provisions of the Act and in. particular G.
of s. 51 were meant to be exercised either immediately or within a
· reasonable tiine of the reorganization of the States and therefore the
exercise of the power by the. Chief Jus#ce under sub-s. (3) of. s. 51 of
the Act appointing Aurangabad as a place where the Judges and
-i Division ·courts of the High Court may also sit, after a lapse . of 26
·years, is· constitutionally impermissible. Any other view, according· H
to the High Court, is bound to ·give rise to a ~ery anamolous
situation as in nine out of sixteen States not' affected by the Act,
668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1983] I s.c.•.

A the creation of a pcrmantent Bench of a High Court must be by an
Act of Parliament while in seven new States formed under the Act,
the same could be achieved by a Presidential Notification under
sub·s. (2) of s. 51 of the Act. Furthermore, in States where .the High
Courts were established by Letters Patent, the powers conferred· on
the Chief Justices of the High Courts qua sittings of single Judges
B and Division Courts can be exercised only with legislative sanction
whereas under subs. (3) of s. 51 it can be d9ne by the Chief Justice \_

of the High Court for a .new State, with the approval of the Governor
of that State. Such a construction of the provisions of s. 51 o( the '
Act would, according to the High Court, result in creating discrimi-
. nation between the States. The reasoning of the High Court that '

c the Act being of a transitory nature, the exercise of the power of
the President under sub-s. (2) of s. SI of the Act, or of the Chief
~·
Justice under sub-s. (3) thereof, after, a lapse of 26 years, would be
a complete nullity, does not impress us at all. The provisions - of
sub-ss. (2) and (3) of s. 51 of the Act are supplemental or incidental
to' the provisions made by Parliament under Arts. 3 and 4 of the
D Constitution. Art. 3 of the Constitution enables Parliament to make
a law for the formation of a new State. The Act is a law under
Art. ·3 for the reorganization of the States. Art. 4 of the Constitu-
tion provides that the law n,ferred to in Art. 3 may contain ... such
supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions as Parliament '
may deem necessary". Onder the scheme _of the Act, these powers
E
con.tinue to exist by reason of Part V of the Act unless Parliament
by law otherwise directs. The power of the President under sub-s.
(2) of s. 51 of the Act, a11d that of the Chief Justice of ,the High
Court under sub'-s. (3) thenl'of are ~intended and meant to be
exercised from time to time as occasion arises, as there is no intention
F to the contrary manifested in the Act within the meaning of s. 14 of
the General Clauses Act. The High Court has assumed that the ~
provisions of sub-ss. (2) and (3) of s. 51 of the Act have 'ebbed our~/
by lapse of time. This assumption is plainly contrary to the • .
. meaning and effect of I. 69 of the Act which in term• provides that
Part V which contains s. 51 of the Act, shall have effect subject to
G any provision that may be made on or after the appointed day with
rcapcct to the High Court of any State, by the Legislature or any
ether authority having power to make such provision.

It is a matter of common knowledge that Parliament considered
H it necessary to reorganize the existing States in India and to provide
for it and other matters connected therewith and with that end ia
view, the States Reorganization Act, 1956 was enacted, As a result
MAHARASHTRA V, N.S. PURANIK. (Sen, J.) 669

of reorganization, boundaries of various States changed. Some of A
the States merged into other States in its entirety, while some States
got split and certain parts thereof inerged into one State and other
parts into another. These provisions were bound to give rise, and
did give rise, to various •complex problems. These problems are
bound to arise from time to time. The Act is a permanent piece of
legislation on the Staiute Book. Section 14 of the Ge~eral CJaµses B
Act, 1897 provides that, where, by ·any Central Act or Regulation,
·any power is conferred, then unless a different· intention appears,
that power may be exercised from time to time as occasion arises.
The. Section embodies a uniform rule of construction. That the
power may be exercised from time to . time when occasion arises
unless a· contrary intention appears is therefore well settled. c
A statute can be abrogated only by express or implied reheal. It
cannot fall into desuetude or become inoperative through obsole-
. scence or by lapse of time. In R. · v. London County Council('),
Scrutton L.J. put the matter thus : ·

•·the doctrine that, because a certain number of.people ·
do not like an Act and because a good many people disobey
it, the Act is therefore ''obsolescent" and no one need pay
anya,ttentiOn to, it is a very dangerous proposition to hold in
any constitutional country .. So Jong as al) Act is on the
statutebook, the way to get·rid of it is to repeal or alter it
in Parliament, not for subordinate bodies, who are bound
E
•
to ·obey the law, to take upon themselves to disobey an
Act of Parliament.';

As to the theory of desuetude, Allen. in his 'Law in the Making,
5th edn. p. 454 observes :
F
"Age 'cannot wither an Act. of Parliament; and at no
time, so far as I am aware, has fr ever been admitted in
our jurisprudetic;that a statute might become inoperative
through obsolescence.". ·

· The learned author mentions that th'ere was at one time· a
G
theory which, in the name of 'non-obse.rvance' came very near
to the doctrine of Desuetude, that ifa statute had been .in existence
for any considerable period without ever being put into 9peration
it may be of little or no effect. The ruje · concerqiQ¥ demetude has -

(I) LR. pm) 2 K.B. 21~,
670 SUPREME COURT REPOR1S 11983)1 s.c.R.

A always met with such general disfavour that it seems hardly profit-
able to discuss it further. It cannot be said that sub·s. (2) or (3) of
s. 51 of the Act can be regarded as obsolescent.· The opening words
of s. 41 ·of the Bombay Reorganization Act, 1960 manifest a clear
legislative intention io preserve the cootinued existence of the
provisions contained in s. 51 of the Act. It was as recent as December
B. 8, J 976 that the President issued a notification under sub-s. (2) of
s. 51 of the Act for the establishment of a permanent Bench of the L
Rajastban High Court at Jaipur. The High Court is therefore noi
right in observing that the provisions of s. 51 of the Act were not
intended to be operative indefinitely and they were meant· to be
exercised either immediately or within a reasonable time, or that
c the powers of the President or the Chief Justice thereunder can no
longer be exercised in relation to the High Court of Bombay.
The conclusion reached by the High Court that the impugned
notification issued by the Chief Justice under sub·s. (3) of s. 51 of the
D Act was not directly connected with the reorganization of the States,
or had no nexus with the· objects and purposes sought to be achieved
by the Act but was only as part of the demand for decentralization ,t
of the administration of justice in general, can only be justified as
a necessary corollary flowing from its views expressed on other
aspects of the matter. The creation of_ 14 new States by Part II of
E the Act based on a linguistic basis virtually led to the. re-drawing of
the political map of India as a whole. Even after the reorganizatioe
of the States in 1956.• the political map of India continued to change
owing to the growing pressure of political considerations and
circums.tances. The formation of the linguistic State · of
·Born bay constituted under s, 8 of the Act · became the source of
F struggle between the Gujarati and Marathi-speaking people as a
result of which the State of Bombay was further bifurcated in 1960
These political changes necessarily affected the constitution and
structure of the High Court. Under the Constitution, Parlianment
alone has the legislative competence to make a law relating to the
G subject under Entry 78 of List I of the Seventh Schedule which
reads :

"78. Constitution and organisation (including
vacations) of the High ·Courts except provisions as to officers
and servants of High Courts : persons entitled to practise
H before the High Courts:
Under the schem' of the Act, it would appear that having
<:onstituted a High Court f<:>r the qew ~tale of Bombay under sub-s.
I

MAHARA'HTRA v. N.S. PURANIK (Sen, J.) 671

(I) ~f s. 49 of the Act and oonferred jurisdiction on it under s. 52 in A
relation to the territories of the new State, Parliament left it to the
various high Constitutional functionaries designated in the three
· sub-sections of s. 51 of the Act to -determine the place where the
principal seat of the High Court should be located and plllC!lS where
permanent Bench or Benches of the High Court may· be estabfahed
or where the Judges and Division Courts of the High Court may also B
·sit. on the reorganization of the Siates as from the appoint day,
i.e. November 1, 1956, the territories of the new State· of Bombay
formed under s. 8 of the Act and with it the jurisdiction of the High
Court was considerably extended. The merger of ihe new territories
- ' '
of the Vidarbha region of the former State of Madhya Pradllsh and
the Marathwada region of the erstwhile State of Hyderabad· together
with the Saurasbtra region of the. newly constituted State of Gujarat
was an additional source of strength of tbe High Court It became
necessary for the more convenient transaction of judicial business to
establish, as from the appointed day, two' Benches of the~High,Court
at Nagpur and Rajkot to deal with matters arising from Vidarbha D
and Saurasbtra regions respectively. The formation of the separate
State of Gujarat in .1960 under s. 3 of the Bombay ,., Reorganization
. .·
Act, 1960 resulted in severance of ties not only with the Saurashtra
region but also with the Gujarat districts over which the High Court
bad exercised jurisdiction for about' a century. The High Court of·
Bombay therefore underwent a major transformation in 1~56 when the" E
bilingual State of Bombay was formed under s. 8 of the Act and then
again in 1960 when with the formation of a separate St~te of Gujarat
under s. 3 of the Bombay Reorganization Act, the residuary .State of
Bombay was to be know'n as 'the State of Maharashtra. Nagpur_
which ceased to be the seat of the.High Court of the new State of
Madhya Pradesh, was given"a Bench by an order issued by the then F
Chief Justice of th~ High Court under sub-s. (3) of s..51 ·of the Act. ·
e arrangement was made permanent by· s. 41 of that Act which
c vided for the establishment of a. permanent Bench at Nagpur to·
I with cases,arising out of the Vidarbha region. It was a solemn
.assurance given to the .people of· the Marathwada region of the
erstwhile State of Hyderabad by cl. (7) of the Nagpur Pact that the G
provision with regard to the establishment of a permanent Bench at'
Nagpur shall also apply mutalis mutandis to the Marathwada region.

I There has· been a long-standing demand ever ~ince the formation H
of the bilingual State of Bombay under s. 8 of the Act- for the
~stablisbment of a permanent Banch of the .Bombay High. Court at
672 SUPRBMB COURT RBPORTS [1983) I s.c.R.

A Aurangabad under sub-s. (2) of s. 51 of the Act for the disposal of
cases arising out of the Marathwada region of the State of
Maharashtra and the matter is still under the active consideration of
the Central Government. Pending the decision of the Central
Government regarding the establishment of a permanent Bench of
the High Court under sub-s. (2) of s. '51 of the Act at Aurangabad for
8 the Marathwada region, the Chief Justice of the Bombay High.Court
issued the impugned order for the establishment of a Bench at
Aurangabad· with effect from August 21, 1981.

The only other point to be considered, and this was the point
principally stressed in this appeal, is whether the power conferred on
c the Chief Justice under sub-s. (3) of s. 51 of the Act to appoint a
place or places where the Judges and Division Courts may also sit,
docs not include a power to establish a Bench or Benches at such
place or places, nor that he ·bad any power or authority thereunder
to issue administrative directions for the filing or institution of
proceedings at such a place. There is quite some discussion in the
D judgment of the High Court on the distinction between the "sittings"
of the Judges and Division Courts and the "seat" of the High Court
and after going into the history of the constitution of the various
High Courts in India and the Letters Patent constituting such High
Courts, the High Court holds that the exercise of the power by the
E Chief Justice under sub-s. (3) of s. 51 of the Act is bad in law as it
brings about.a-territorial bifurcation of the High Court. According
to the Higli Court, the Judges and Division Courts at Aurangabad
were competent to hear and decide cases arising out of the districts
of the Marathwada region assigned to them by the Chief Justice,
but the Chief Justice had no power or authority under sub s. -(3) of
F s. 51 of the Act to issue administrative directions for the filing or
institution of proceedings at such a place. The judgment of the High
Court mainly rests on the decijion of the Kerala High Court in/"~/
Manickam Pillai Subbayya Pillai v. Assistant Registrar, High Cour't ~
Kera/a, Trivandrum(') and the minority view of Raina, J. in Abdul
Taiyab Abbasbhai Malik & Ors. v. The Union of India & Ors.,(')
G following the Kerala view.

It is not necessary for our purposes to go into the distinction
sought to be drawn between the "sittings" of the. Judges and
Division Courts at a place and the "seat" of tlw High Court. It is
H
(I) A.I.R. 1958 Kerala 188.
(2) A.J 1R. 1977 M.P•.116,
MAHARASHTRA •. N.S. PURANIK {Sen, J.) 673 •

difficult to comprehend how the Chief Justice can arrange for the A
sittings of the Judges and Division Courts at a particular place unless
there is a seat at that place; It may be true in the juristic sense that
the seat oft.he High Court must mean "the principal seat of such
High Court," i.e. the place where the High Court is compete11t to
transact every kind of business from any part of the territories within
its jurisdiction. It is impossible to conceive of a High Court without a B
seat being assigned to it. The place where it would sit to administer
justice cir, in ofher words, where i.ts jurisdiction can be invoked is
an essential and indispensable feature of the legal institution; known
.as a Court. Where there is only one seat of the High Court, it
must necessarily have all the attributes of the principal seat. But
where the High Court has mote than one seat, one of them may or
c
may not be the principal seat ·according to the legislative scheme.
It is both sound reason and commonsense to .say that the High Court
of Bombay is located at its principal seat at Bombay; but it also
bas a seat at the permanent Bench at Nagpur. When the Chief
Justice makes an ardor in terms of sub-s. (3) of s. 51 of the Act that D
Judges and Division Courts of the High Court shall also sit at such
other places, the High Court in the genetic sense bas also a seat 1 at
such other places. We may drew some analogy from the plovisions
of Art. 130 of the Constitution which reads :

· "130. The Supreme Court shall sit in Delhi or in such E
other place or places, as the Chief Justice of India may,
with the approval of the President, from time to. time,
appoint,"

It is necessary to emphasize that besides · administering justice,
F·
•
the High Court bas the administrative control over the subordinate
judiciary in a State. The High Court must necessarily carry. on its
~ administrative functions from the principal seat, i.e, the place where
~e High Court transacts every Kind of business in all its capacities.
The High Court as such is l0cated ther~. but it may have more. thaii
-0ne seat for transaction of judicial business. The constitution and ·
structure of the High Court depends on the ·statute creating it.·
G
The decision in Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal(')
is not directly in point ·as it turned on the construction of the
provisions of the U.P. High Courts (Amalgamation) order, 1948,
It is however an authority f<?~ the proposition that after the
. ' ' ' ' JJ
u> [i976J 1 s.c.R. sos.
674 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1983]_ I s.c.R.

A amalgamation of the High Court of Allahabad and the Chief Court
of Oudh, the two High Courts ceased to exist and became Benches
of the newly constituted High Court by the name of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad. ·Further, the Court held that a case
"instituted" at a particular Bench baa
to be "heard" at that Bench.
It recognized that there can be two seats of the High Court without
a principal seat.

It must here be mentioned that provisions similar to sub-s.(3) of
s. 51 of the Act existed in almost all the Letters Patent. or the Acts
under which the various High Courts have been constituted. While
introducing the Bill of 1861 in the British Parliament for the
c establishment of the High Courts for. the B~ngal Division of the
Presidency of Fort William and ·also at Madras and Bombay,
Sir Charles Wood, Secretary of State for India, laid stress on
. lbe advantage of the Judges of the new Courts going on circuit
to try criminal cases. He said :

D · "Now according to the prov!Slons of this Bill, the
" Judges of the Supreme Court may. be sent .on circuit
tlrroughout the country, ..... It may be impossible in a
country like India to bring justice to every man's door,
but at all events the system now proposed will bring it. far
• nearer than at present."
E
When we examine the constitution of the various High Courts
in India, one)hing is clear that ·whenever a High Court was established
by Letters patent under s. I of the Indian High Courts Act, 1861
called the Charter Act, or under s. 113 of the Government of India
• Act, 1935, the High Court was created and established at a particular
F
place mentioned in the Letters Patent. S. 1 of the. Charter Act
provided that it shall be lawful for Her Majesty, by I;etters Pateµ! /_,.,
under the great seal of the United Kingdom, to erect and establish__,.
a High Court of Judicature at Fort William at Bengal for ·the Bengal
. Division of the Presidency of the Fort William, and by like Letters
G Patent, to erect and establish like High Courts at Madras and
B·ombay for these Presidencies respectively. In pursuance of these
provisions by Letters Patent issued by Het Majesty in '1862, the.
Chartered High Courts of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay were
established. In virtue of the powers conferred by s; 16 ·of the Act
H the Crown by Letters Patent established in 1866 at Agra a High
Court of Judicature for North· Western Provinces for the Presidency
pf Fort William~ to be 9alled a High Court of Judicature for Nortl\
MAHARASHTRA v. N.S. PURANIK (Sen,,J)

Western Provinces. The seat of the High Court for the North A
Western Provinces was shifted from Agra to Allahabad in 1869 and
its designation was altered to the High .court of Judicature at
Allahabad by .Supplementary Letters Patent issued in 1919 in
pursuance of s. 101 (5) of the Government of India Act, 1915. The
expression "erect and establislf" in relation to a High Court meant
nothing more than to indicate the establishment of the High Court D
j
at a particular place where the High Court was competent to
transact every kind of business arising .frolll any part of _the
territory within its jurisdiction.. '-

Cl. .3 I of the Letters Patent for the ·High Cou.tt of Calcutta'._
provides for "exercise of jurisdiction elsewhere than at the ordinary
place of sittlng of the HiJlh Court':' and it reads as follows :

"And we do further ordain that whenever· it shall "
appear to the Governor General in Council convenient. that• •
the jurisdiction and power by these our Letters . Patent, or
by the recited Act,· vested in the said High Court of '
D
Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, should be exercised in
an"' place within the -jurisdiction of any Court now ·
subject to the superintendence of. the said High Court,
other than the usual place of sitting of the said Hjgh Court, .
or at several such places by way of circuit, the proceedings
in cases before the said High Court at such place or
.·.l:t
places shall be-regulated by any law relating thereto which
has been or may be made by competent legislative '
authority for India;"

· The Letters Patent for the High Courts of Madras and Bombay are F
~mutatis mutandis in ·almo'st the same terms. Cl. 31 of 'these Letters
,,. ·Patent similarly provided for "exercis~ of jurisdiction elsewhere than
' · at the ordinary place of sitting of the High Court."· it would·. appe_;ir
therefrom that tb,e power to direct that the High Court shall sit at
a place or places ·other than the usual place of sitting of. these High
Courts was a power of the Governor•General in Council, and the
proceedings in cases before the said High Courts at .such · pface or
places were to be regulated .by any law relating thereto which had
been or might be made by competent legisfative authority for India.

H
It is clear upon the-terms of s. 51 of the Act that undoubtedly
the President has the power under sub-s. (I) to appoint the principal
·.
676 - SUPIU!MB COURT RBPORTS [1983] .I s.C.R.

seat of the High Court for a new State. Likewise, the power of the
Presidellt under sub·s. (2) thereof, after consultation with the
Governor of a new State and the Chief Justice of the High Court
for that State, pertains to the establishment of a permanent Bench or
Benches of that High Court of a new State at one or more places
within the State other than the place where the principal seat of the
B High Court is located and for any matters connected therewith
clearly confer power on the President to define the territorial
jurisdiction of the permanent Bench in relation to the principal seat
as also for the conferment of exclusive jurisdictio~ to such
permanent Bench to hear cases arising in districts falling within its
jurisdiction. The creation of a permanent Bench under sub-s. (2) ~
c of s. 51 of the Act must therefore bring about a territorial
bifurcation of the High Court. Under sub·s. (I) and sub·s. · (2) of ·
s. S l of the Act the President has to act on the advice of the
Council of Ministers as ordained by Art. 74 (I) of the Constitution.
In both the matters the decision lies with the Central Government.
In contrast, the power of the Chief Justice to appoint under sub-s.
D (3) of s. 51 of the Act the sittings of the Judges and Division. Courts
of the High Court for a new State a( places other than ·the place of
th.e principal seat or the permanent Bench is in the unquestioned
domain of the Chief Justice, the only condition being that. he must
act with the approval of the Governor. It is basically an internal
matter p~rtaiiling to the High Court. He bas full power, authority
E and jurisdiction in the matter of allocation. of business of the High
Court which flows not only from the provision contained in sub·s.
(3) of s. 51 of the Act but. inheres in him in the very nature of
things. The opinion of the Chief Justice to appoint the seat of
the High Court for a new State at a place other than the principal
seat under sub-s. (3) of s. 51 of the Act must therefore normally
F prevail because it is for the more convenient transaction of judicial ..-<"'I
business. The non obstante clause contained in sub·s. (3) of s. SI_,_-· 1
gives an overriding effect to the power of the Chief Justice. There •
is no territorial bifurcation of the High Court merely because the
Chief Justice directs under sub·s. (3) of s. 51 of· the Act that
the Judges and Division Courts shall also sit at such other places
G as be may, with the approval of the Governor, appoint. It must
accordingly be held that there was· no territorial bifurcation· of the
Bombay High Court merely because the Chief Justice by the
impugned notification issued tinder sub-s. (3) of s. 51 of the Act .
directed that the Judges and Division Courts shall also sit at
~I
Aurangabad. The Judges and Division Courts at Aurangabad are
MAHARASHTAA v. N.S. l>URANIK (Sen. J.) . 677
part of the same High Court as those at the principal seat at~ A
Bombay and they exercise jurisdiction as Judges_of the High Court
of Bombay at Aurangabad. The Chief Justice acted within the
scope of his powers. We see no substance in the -charge that the
impugned notification issued by the Chief JustiCe under sub-s. (3)
of s. 51 of the Act was a colourable exercise of power.
)
B
As to the scope and effect of sub-s. (3) of s. 51 of the Act,
the question came np for consideration before .Chagla, C. J. and
Badkas, J/ in Seth Manji Dana v. Commissioner of Income-tax,
Bombay & Ors.(') decided on July 22, 1958. This was an application
by which the validity of r. 254 of the Appellate Side Rules was
challenged insofar as it provided that all income-tax references
presented at :t:-fagpur should be heard at the principal seat of the
c
High Court at Bombay, and the contention was that the result of
this rule, was that it excludeu income-tax references from the
jurisdiction of the High Court functioning at Nagpur. In repelling
the contention, Chagla, C. J; observed :
D
"Legally, the position is quite clear, under section 51
(3) of the State Reorganization Act, the Judges sitting at
Nagpur constitute a part of the High Court of Bombay.
They are as much a part of the High Court of Bombay,
and if we might say so distinguished part of the High Court
of Bombay, as if they were sitting under the same roof E
under which Judges function in Bombay. All that happ~ns
is that the Chief Justice, under the powers given to him
under the Letters Patent distributes the work to various
Judges and various Divisional Bencbils, and acting
under that power be distribut,es certain work to the
Judges sitting at Nagpur." F
He then continued :

"All that rule 254 does is to permit as a matter of
convenience certain matters to be presented· at Nagpur to
the Deputy Registrar. If rµle 254 had not been .enacted, G
·all matters would have ·to be presented at Bombay and
then the Chief Justice would have distributed those matters
to different Judges, whether sitting in Bombay or at
Nagpur. It is out of regard and consideration for the
H
(I) Civil Appeal No. 995 of 1957,
678 Sl'.IPRBMB COORt RBPOii. TS fl983j I s.c.ll.
A '
people of Vidarbha and for their convenience . that this 1
rule is enacted, so that litigants should not be put to the
inconvenience ·of going to Bombay to present certain
matters. Therefore, this particular rule has nothing
whatever to do either with section 51 (3) of the States
Reorganisation Act or with the Constitution."
B

With regard to r. 254, he went on to say

"Now, having dispqsed of the legal aspect of the matter,
c we turn to the practical aspect, and let us consider whether
this rule inconveniences the people at Nagpur. If it does,
it would certain call for an amendment of that role. Now, .
there is particular reason why all Income Tax References
should be heard in Bombay and that reason is this. The
High Court of Bombay for many years, rightly or wrongly,
D has followed a particular policy with regard to Income Tax
References and that policy is that the same Bench should
hear Income Tax References, so that there should be a
continuity with regard to the· decisions given on these
References. I know that other High Courts have
referred to this policy with praise because they have realised
E that the result of this policy bas been th.at Income Tax
Law has been laid down in a manner which has received
commendation from various sources. The other reason
is and we hope we are not mistaken in saying so that the
number of Income Tax References from Nagpur are very
few. If the number was large, undoubtedly a very strong
case would be made out for these cases to be heard ,at
Nagpur.'' '

He then concluded :

G "After all, Courts exist for the convenience of the
litigants and not in order to maintain any particular system
of law or any particular system of administration. Whenever
a Court finds that a particular rule does not serve the
convenience . of litigants, the Court should be always
H
prepared to change the rule.''
. MAHARASHTRA v. N.S. PURANIK (Sen, J.) 679
•
The ratio to be deduced: from the decision 'of Chagla, C. J. A
is that the Judges and Division Courts sitting at Nagpur were
functioning as if they were the Judges and Division Courts of the
High Court at Bombay ..

In Maitickam Pillai's case (supra), the Kerala High Court held
that the curtailment of the territorial jurisdiction of the main seat of
the High Co\lrt of a new State is a necessary concomitant to the
establishment of a perma'nent Bench under sllb·s. (2) of s. 51 of
the Act whikcontrasting sub-s. (3) with sub.-s. (2). There, a question •
arose whether the temporary Bench of the High Court of .. Kerala
with its principal seat at Ernakulam created by the Chief -Justice
c
at Trivandrum by an order issued under sub s. (3) of s. 51 of the .
Act was not the High Court of Kerala, and the Judges and Division
Courts sitting at Trivandrum were precisely in the same position
as Judges and Division Courts sitting in the several court-rooms
of the High · Court at its principal seat in Ernakulam. In other
words, the- contention was that· the· Judges and Division Courts
sitting at Trivandrum could only hear arid dispose of such cases as
were directed to be posted before them by the Chief Justice ·but
no new case could be instituted there. Raman Nayar, J. (as he then
was) speaking for the.Court held that the Trivandrum Bench was
·not the High Court of Keiala and the Judges and Division Courts
sitting at Trivandrum could hear and dispose of only such cases E
as may be assigned to them. With respect, we are of the_ opinion
that the view ex~ressed by Chagla, C. J. in Manji Dana's case,
(supra), is to be preferred. Chagla, C. J. rightly observes that the
Judges and Division Courts at a temporary Bench established
under sub-s. (3) 9f s: 51 of the Act function as Judges and Divisio?
.e Courts of the High Court -at the ·principal seat, and while so
' sitting at such a temporary. Bench they may exercise the jurisdiction
·~- and power of the High Court itself in relation to all the ~atters
·entrusted to them.

_In the result, the appeal must succeed and is allowed. The
..
judgment and order passed by the High Court is set aside and the writ
G
petition flied by respondent No. I is dismissed. In terms of the
order. passed by, us on May 4, 1982, we direct that in accordance
with the notification issued by the Chief Justice of the High Court
of Born bay dated August 27, 1981, the sittings of 'the Judge_s and H
Division Courts may be held and continue to be held at Aurangabad
l"ith full and normal powers to entertain and dispose of all matter~
680 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1983) l s.C.lt.

A arising out of th·e Marathwada region, that is to say, the area
compnsmg the districts of Aurangabad, Bhir, Jalna, Nanded,
Osmanabad and. Parbaili. All cases pertaining to that region and
pending as on May 4, 1982 at the main seat of the High Court at
Bombay shall be dealt with and disposed of as the Chief Justice
of the High Court may direct. consistently with the terms of the
B .aforesaid notification dated August 27, 1981.
-~
There shall be no order as to costs .

•
H. L. C. Appeal dismissed.

•

I