, " .'
'" Ch. XXX, R. 5] Miscellaneous [215
CHAPTER XXXI PRESENTATION OF PROCEEDINGS AT THE .
OFFICE OF TIlE fIIGH COURT ATNAGPUR~ AURANGABAD AND PANAJI, GOA 1[1. Presentation of matters at Nagpur, Aurangabad and Goa.--All 'appeals, applications, references and petitions including petitions for exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution arising in the Judicial Districts of Akola, Amravati, Bhandara, Buldhana, Chandrapur, Nagpur, Wardha, Yavatmal and Gadchiroli which lie to the High Court of Bombay shall be presented to the Additional Registrar ofthat High Court at Nagpur and shall be disposed of by the Judges sitting at Nagpur:
Provided that the Chief Justice may, in his discretion, order that any case arising in any such District shall be heard at Bombay;
Provided further that the Chief Justice may, in his discretion, order that any case presented at Bombay be heard at Nagpur.]
Notes Chapter 31. Rule 1(1).--A ppellate J 1Iriscliction of High COlirt. Writ Petition- Challenging order of .loint Charity Commissioner, Pune. Refusing permission to aliena te immovable properties oftrust.--Appl ication for trans fer of petition for presenting in A urangabad Bench. Contention, cause of action not arisen within territorial j urisdiction of Appellate Side of principal seat of High Court at Bombay since properties are located within jurisdiction of Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court. It was held that the objection has no merit, cause of action wholly arisen within jurisdiction of AppeIlate Side of principal seat of Bombay High Court at Bombay since impugned order is passed at Pune which is within ordinary territorial limits of Appellate Side of principal seat at Bombay.
A.T.R. 1975Bom. 182; 2001 (2) S.C.c. 294 referred to. 2004 (Supp. 2) Born. C.R.(S,C.) 654 relied on. Haji Abdul Raznk Yasim Patel Vs. Bnra Irnam Masjid Trust, 2006(1) Born, C.R. 776 : 2006(1) ~Mah.L.J. 184 : 2005(4) All M.R. 746.
Chapter 31, Rule l(l).--Appellate Jurisdiction--Writ Petition.e-It was held that the Benches of principal seat would be extremely slow in entertaining matters which have arisen within the ordinary territorial jurisdiction of another Bench. Haji Abdul Razak Yasirn Patel Vs. Bars Imam Masjid Trust, 2006(1) Born. C.R. 776: 2006(1) Mah. L.J. 184 :
2005(4) All M.R. 7.:16.
Chapter XXXI, Rule l(I).--Appcllate Jurisdiction--Writ Petitions--Part of cause of action arisen within the normal territorial jurisdiction of two Benches. It was held that litizant would be entitled to approach either bench. 2004(Supp. 2) Born. C.R. (S.c.) 654 relied on. Haji Abdul Razak Yasim Patel Vs. Bara Imam Masjid Trust, 2006(1) Born.
.. C.R. 776: 2006(1) Mah. L.J. 184 : 2005(4) All M.R. 746.
Chapter XX.XI Rule 1 read with section 41 of the Bombay Reorganisatio~ Act, 1960 and Article 226(2) of Constitution ofIndia.--JlIrisdiction of the Nagpu.r Bench of the Bombay High Court.--The relevant facts in relation to the ca~se of action ~re not disputed namely that, the tender notice was published at Bombay, bids were submitted at Bombay, the scrutiny of documents, fire tests were conducted at Bombay. Eventually the Substituted by Notification No. P. 3603186 dt, 7-8-1986.
216] The Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 [Ch. XXX!. R . .)
letter dated 27.8.2009 was issued. at Bombay. According to the petitioner the following events give rise to the part of the cause of action at Nagpur - a communication pertaining to tender notice, communication of date and timing of opening and communication regarding a query about the validity of a certificate, all received atNagpur, Indeed no other events are.
relied upon for asserting that the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Bench at Nagpur. High Court thus find that mere receipt of three communications dated
23.12.2008,9.1.2009 and 16.6.2009, by the petitioner at Nagpur pertaining to a corrigendum to the tender notice, the date and time of the open ing of the tender and whether a certificate submitted by the petiiioueris appropriate, do not furnish even part of the cause ofactiou nne!
thus, the petitioner is not entitled to move this Bench at Nagpur. VSP Acqua \1 ist Fire Pvt.
Ltd., Nagpur Vs. ;\'1;.hal'asiltl'a State Elcctricity Trausmission Comp:H1YLtd., :\lumblli and others, 2010(2) lViil. L.J. 575.
t [2. All appea Is, appl ications, references and petitions incl uding petitions for exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution arising in the Judicial Districts of Ahmed nagar, Aurangabad, Beed. Jalgaon, .JaJnL1.
Nanded, Osmanabad, Parbhani and Latur which lie to the High Court CIt Bornbav shall be nresented to the Additional Registrar at l' uranuabr 1 !:ilvi'" t .......: \.......(..{.t lb3..~l.n.....\..!. ;..,..I t ,~~ shall be disposed of by the Judges sitting at Aurangabad:
Provided that the Chief Justice may, in his discretion, order that any case or class of cases arising in any such District shall be heard at Bombay:
Provided further that the ChiefJustice may, in his discretion, order that any case presented at Bombay be heard at Aurangabad.]
Notes Chapter 31, Rule 2 read with section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure> Application for tra nsfer of cases ...-Applicants wives seeki ng transfer of Petitions filed by their respective transfer husbands from places of institution to the place where they are residing with their parents. Their plight and suffering germane. Their ordinary residence with parents gives them a cause and reason to seek the order of transfer. it forms a part of cause of action to seek such a relief. Sangamitra w/o. Ramakaut Royalwar Vs.
Ramakant s/o. Gangaralll Royalwar, 2008(6).All 1'11<. 1 : 2009(1) Mh. LoS.303.
Chapter 31, Rules 2 & 3-Chief Justice Courts administrative powers - Scope Transfer of case from one Bench to another at different places to principal seat under administrative power of Ch iefJ ustice - Challenge to directions tha t certain ca tegorics of C:lses before Allrallg_:lb;ld, Nagpuf, Goa Benches be transferred to principal scat at [\ (um ba i-0 rdc r da led 6-1-20 I0 modi lies ca riier ortie r of Chief Just.ice, dated 24- 2-1993 under Rules 1,2 and 3 of Appellate Side Rules provides that writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 or Constitution oflndia which are pending as weil ~ISfiled before High COllrt Benches at Nagpur, Aurangabad and Goa Benches against Honble Chief Justice and its officers and District and Sessions Judges by Judicial Ofticers of Distric.t and Sli bordinll te judiciary and private persons arising from judicia! Districts of (aforesaid Benches) be transferred to principal seat at l'Vlumbai with clarificatioll thatthis order will not apply to judicial orders passed by judicial officers and wherein .iudicial officers arc made [,orma! parties - Petitions are fi'lecl by Lawyers Forulll aud by Litigating Public - I i is contended that power can be exercised by Apex Court and High Court under Arlides l-lS alld 225 of Constitution of India and that statutory provisions for lllodilication have not been followed - Held, power of a.llocation of work bv Chi'ef Justice. There is distinction between order passed on request of parties 'and one I <;lIh'lillll~L1bv Nillii'lcatioll No. P. 3602/!S8 dt. 30-12-J988, pub. inM.G.G. Pi !V..C, page57.
I ,",vI Ch.XXXA] General (217 by·Chief] ustice under its administrative powers. Second categories includes cases that are filed before different Benches arc needed to be clubbed to be heard by one and same Bench.
In first category cases Chief Justice has to hear parties and pass order in second category, f-leexercises power as master of roster an adm inistrative power. Conclusion power of High Court is saved by Article 225 of Constitution of India and other provisions of Constitution to frame rules as to filing of matters before Benches and transfer of matters from other Benches to principal seat at Mumbai and rule making power under section 122 of C.P.C.
Proviso to Rule 2 of Chapter 31 of High Court (Appellate Side) Rules is illegal and invalid as same is in contravention of section 126 of C.P.C. It is well settled that ChiefJustice as master 0 f roster has power to allocate judicial work to Judges 011 di fferent Benches, power to w ithd raw matters ai located to Judges or Benches. Power to trans fer matters filed at different Benches to principal seat. Hence, no need to set aside orders passed by Chief Justice Lawyers Forum for General Utility.8. Litigating Public Vs. State of Maha rashrra & ors., 2015 (2) Bom. C.R. 333: 2015 (1) AIR Dom R 516.
I [3. All appeals, applications, references, petitions including petitions for exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, arising in the State of Goa, which lie to the High Court at Bombay, shall be presented to the Special pfficer at Panaji, Goa and shall be disposed of by the Judges sitting at Panaj i, Goa:
Provided that the Chief Justice may, in his discretion, order that any case arising in the State of Goa shall be heard at Bombay:
Provided further that the Chief J ustice may, in his discretion, order that any case presented at Bombay be heard at Panaj i,Goa.
4. All appeals, applications, references and petitions including petitions for exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india, arisinz in the Union Territories of Daman and Diu and the Union Territories of Dadr,,;' and Nagar Haveli which lie to the High Court at Bombay, shall be presented to the Additional Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Judicature, Bombav. at Bornbav and shall be disposed of bv the Judges sitting on the Appellate Side: .
Provided that the Chief Justice may, in his discretion, order that any case arising in tile Union Territories or' Daman and Diu shall be heard at Panaji, Goa:
Notwithstand ing anything contained in the amended Rules 3 and 4 above all cases arising in the existing Union Territories of Daman and Diu, which according to the Rules before the present amendment, have been filed at Panaj i Bench, shall continue as before and shall be disposed of unless all the litigating parties desire otherwise, by the Panaji Bench of the High Court of Bornbay.]
2[E xplanauon.c-However, a II appeals, appl ications references and Petitions in exerc ise of Dowers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India ar .il1i!.from tiJ~ proceed ings pend ing in the Courts ofthe State of Goa and arising ii'om;m ofthe Union Territory of Daman and Diu shall be, presented at Panaji Bench.]
CHAPTER XXXI-A GENERAL Deleted vide J Iigh Court Noti fication No. P 3606179 dated the i. 7th April 1980 which was published in Mall. Gov!. Gazette dt. 1-5-1980, Part 4-C, pages 577-587.
1. Substituted by Notification No. P. 3604/87 dt, 3·11·1987, pub. in M.G.G. PI. IV-C, page 751
2. Added by Notification No. P. 3601189 dated 7·10·1989.