http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 15  

PETITIONER: NASIRUDDIN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

DATE OF JUDGMENT29/08/1975

BENCH: RAY, A.N. (CJ) BENCH: RAY, A.N. (CJ) MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN KRISHNAIYER, V.R. FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA

CITATION:  1976 AIR  331            1976 SCR  (1) 505  1975 SCC  (2) 671  CITATOR INFO :  D          1983 SC  46  (21)

ACT:      United  Provinces  High  Courts  (Amalgamation)  Order, 1948, Paragraphs  7 and 14-Seat of the High Court-Allahabad, if the  permanent seat  of High  Court-Chief Justice, if can reduce the areas in Oudh.      Interpretation of Statutes-Plain and unambiguous words, when could be interpreted in their ordinary sense.

HEADNOTE:      Paragraph  7   of  the  United  Provinces  High  Courts (Amalgamation) Order,  1948, provides  that (1) The new High Court shall  have, in  respect of  the whole  of the  United Provinces,  all   such   original,   appellate   and   other jurisdiction as,  under the  law in force immediately before the appointed  day, is exercisable in respect of any part of that province  by either of the existing High Court; (2) The new High  Court shall  also have  in  respect  of  any  area outside the  United Provinces  all such  original, appellate and other jurisdiction as under the law in force immediately before the  appointed day  is exercisable in respect of that area by the High Court in Allahabad.      Paragraph 14  of the  Order provides  that the new High Court, and the judges and division courts thereof, shall sit at Allahabad or at such other places in the United Provinces as the  Chief Justice may, with the approval of the Governor of the  United Provinces, appoint. The first proviso to this paragraph provides  that unless  the Governor  of the United Provinces  with   the  concurrence  of  the  Chief  Justice, otherwise directs,  such judges  of the  new High Court, not less than  two in  number, as  the Chief  Justice, may, from time to  time nominate,  shall sit  at Lucknow  in order  to exercise in  respect of cases arising in such areas in oudh, as the  Chief Justice may direct, the jurisdiction and power for the  time being vested in the new High Court. The second proviso to  this paragraph  provides that  the Chief Justice may in  his discretion order that any case or class of cases arising in the said areas shall be heard at Allahabad.      Respondent No.  1  and  respondent  No.  3  filed  writ

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 15  

petition No.  3294 of  1970 in  the High Court at Allahabad. One of the grounds in the writ petition was that the Lucknow Bench of  the Allahabad  High Court  had no  jurisdiction to entertain and  decide the writ petition No 750 of 1964 filed by the  appellant, because  the dispute arose at Bareilly in Rohilkhand Division,  which  was  within  in  the  exclusive jurisdiction  of   the  Allahabad  High  Court,  sitting  at Allahabad, and it had nothing to do with the oudh territory. The matter was referred to the Full Bench.      Writ Petition  No. 470  of 1971 filed in the High Court at Lucknow  and Criminal  Revision No.  270 of 1973 filed in the High  Court at  Allahabad were also referred to the Full Bench.      Five questions  were referred  for decision to the Full Bench.  The  majority  View  of  the  Full  Bench  gave  the following answers:           (1)  A case  falling within  the  jurisdiction  of                Judges at  Lucknow  should  be  presented  at                Lucknow and not at Allahabad.           (2)   However. if  such a  case  is  presented  at                Allahabad  the  Judges  at  Allahabad  cannot                summarily dismiss  it only  for that  reason.                The case should be returned for filing before                the Judges  at Lucknow and where the case has                been mistakenly  or inadvertently entertained                at Allahabad  a direction  should be  made to                the High  Court Office to transmit the papers                of the case to Lucknow. 506           (3)   A case pertaining to the jurisdiction of the                Judges at  Lucknow and  presented before  the                Judges at  Allahabad cannot be decided by the                Judges at  Allahabad in  the  absence  of  an                order contemplated  by the  second proviso to                Article 14 of the Amalgamation Order, 1948.           (4)   The expression  "in respect of cases arising                in such  areas in  Oudh" used  in  the  first                proviso to  Article  14  of  the  High  Court                (Amalgamation) Order,  1948, refers  to legal                proceedings including  civil  cases  criminal                cases, petitions  under Articles 226, 227 and                228 of  the Constitution  and petitions under                Articles 132, 133 and 134 of the Constitution                instituted  before   the  Judges  sitting  at                Lucknow and having their origin, in the sense                explained in  the majority  judgment in  such                areas  in  oudh  as  the  Chief  Justice  may                direct. The expression "arising in such areas                in oudh  " refers to the place where the case                originated in  the  sense  explained  in  the                majority  judgment   and  not  to  the  place                sitting of  the last court or authority whose                decree or  order is  being challenged  in the                proceedings before the High Court.           (5)   The Lucknow  Bench have  no jurisdiction  to                hear writ petition No. 750 of 1964 which have                rise to writ petition No. 3294 of 1970.      Two appeals  have been  preferred to  this Court on the basis of  special leave  granted by this Court one appeal is by certificate. ^      HELD: (i)  If the  precise words  used  are  plain  and unambiguous,  they  are  bound  to  be  construed  in  their ordinary sense.  The mere fact that the results of a statute may be  unjust does not entitle a Court to refuse to give it

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 15  

effect. If  there are  two different  interpretations of the words in  an Act,  the Court  will adopt that which is just, reasonable and  sensible rather  than that  which is none of those  things.   If   the   inconvenience   is   an   absurd inconvenience, by  reading  an  enactment  in  its  ordinary sense, whereas  if it  is read  in a  manner in  which it is capable, though not in an ordinary sense, there would not be any inconvenience  at all;  there would  be reason  why  one should not  read it  according to  its ordinary  grammatical meaning. Where  the words are plain the Court would not make any alteration. [515A-C]      (ii) The  word "or"  in paragraph  14 cannot be read as "and". The  Order describes  the High  Court as the new High Court. The  two High Courts have amalgamated in the new High Court. The  seat is  at Allahabad or at such other places as may be  determined.  There  is  no  permanance  attached  to Allahabad. If that were the intention of the order, the word "and instead  of the  word "or"  would have been used. Other places  may   be  determined   by  the   Chief  Justice   in consultation with  the Governor.  It is  left to prudence of the authorities  mentioned as to what other places should be determined. In  the normal  understanding of the matters, it is left  to the  discretion of the authorities as to whether the seats  at Allahabad  as  well  as  at  Lucknow  will  be changed. Both  places  may  continue.  Both  places  may  be changed. Lucknow  is the  seat of  the Government. Allahabad has also  the history  that the  High Court was there before the Order. Lucknow has been the principal place of oudh. The order  aimed   at  giving   status   to   the   Oudh   Chief Commissioner’s Court  as that  of  the  High  Court.  It  is difficult to foresee the future whether the authorities will change the location to other places but no idea of permanent seat can be read into the order. One can only say that it is the wish  and hope  that both  Allahabad and Lucknow will be the two important seats so that history is not wiped out and policy is not changed. [515-A, D-G]      (iii) The  unreasoning of the High Court that the Chief Justice might reduce the areas in oudh because the words "as the Chief  Justice may direct" occur immediately after words "in such  areas in  Oudh" is  not correct.  First, the words "from time  to time"  apply only to the nomination of Judges by the  Chief Justice to sit at Lucknow and not to the words "such areas  in oudh  as the  Chief Justice may direct". The important words  in the first proviso to paragraph 14 of the Order are  "such judges of the new High Court, not less than two in  number, as  the Chief Justice may, from time to time nominate, shall  sit at  Lucknow." These words indicate that the power of the Chief Justice to nominate Judges, who shall sit at  Lucknow is to be exercised from time to time meaning thereby that  the power  can be exercised as often as may be necessary. Second, the words "in 507 respect of cases arising in such areas in Oudh, as the Chief Justice may  direct" occur in the collocation of words "that the Judges  nominated shall  sit  at  Lucknow  in  order  to exercise in  respect of cases arising in such areas in Oudh, as the  Chief Justice may direct, the jurisdiction and power for the  time being vested in the new High Court." The words "as the  Chief Justice  may direct"  mean that  exercise the power to  direct what  the areas in Oudh are for exercise of jurisdiction by  Judges at Lucknow Bench. Once that power is exercised, it  is exhausted.  The reason  is that  the areas once determined should hold good on account of certainty and to dispel  problems being  created  from  time  to  time  by increase or decrease of areas. [516B-E]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 15  

    (iv) Section  14 of General Clauses Act cannot have any application  because   a  different   intention  appears  in paragraph 14 of the Order. [517-D]      (v) The  sum and substance as well as the spirit of the order is  that under  the  first  proviso  to  paragraph  14 Lucknow becomes  the seat  in respect  of cases  arising  in areas in  Oudh. There is no other provision except paragraph 14 in  the order as to what the ares in Oudh are or will be. Historically, only  the same  12 Districts  continued to  be comprised in  Oudh. When  the Order  came into  existence in 1948, it  was for  the Chief  Justice to direct the areas in Oudh which  would be  within the jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench. The  direction which the Chief Justice has given once with regard to the areas in Oudh remains unaltered. [516F-H, 517A & C]      (vi) If  the cause of action arise wholly or in part at a place  within the  specified Oudh areas, the Lucknow Bench will have  jurisdiction. If  the  cause  of  actions  arises wholly within  the specified  Oudh areas, it is indisputable that the  Lucknow Bench would have exclusive jurisdiction in a such  a matter.  If the  cause of  action arises  in  part within the  specified areas  in Oudh it would be open to the litigant  who  is  the  dominus  litis  to  have  his  forum conveniens. The  litigant has  the right  to go  to a  Court where part  of his  cause of  action arises.  The Court will find out  in each case whether the jurisdiction of the Court is rightly  attracted by the alleged cause of action. [518D- F]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 1940- 1941 of 1972.      Appeal by  Special Leave  from the  Judgment and  order dated the 17th December, 1971 of the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No. 3294 of 1970 and               Criminal Appeal No. 254 of 1974.      From the Judgment and order dated the 28th March, 1973, of the  Allahabad High Court in Criminal Revision No. 270 of 1973.      Sarjoo Prasad,  R.N. Sharma, H.D. Srivastava, Hari Nath Tihari, B.C.  Saxena and  C.P. Lal for the Appellant in C.A. Nos. 1940-1941/72.      F.S. Nariman,  G.L. Verma, S.P. Singh, R.P. Singh, S.K. Bagga and  Mrs. S. Bagga for the Intervener in Allahabad Bar Association in C.A. 1940/72.      Yogeshwar Prasad,  G.N. Verma,  S.P. Singh, R.P. Singh, S.K. Bagga and Mrs. S. Bagga for the Intervener in Allahabad Bar Association in C.A. 1941/72.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      Ray, C.J.-Two of these appeals are by special leave and one by certificate from the judgment dated 17 December, 1971 of the Full Bench of the High Court at Allahabad. 508      Civil Appeal  No. 1940  of 1972  arises out of the Writ Petition No.  3294 of  1970. Writ  Petition No. 3294 of 1970 was filed  before the  Lucnow Bench  of the  High  Court  by respondents Nos. 3 to 9 for quashing the order dated 12 May, 1970 passed  by the  State Transport  Appellate Tribunal  at Lucknow. The respondents also claimed the direction that the judgment of  the High  Court sitting  at  Lucknow  dated  15 September, 1966  in Writ  Petition No.  750  of  1964  is  a nullity.      The facts  in Writ Petition No. 3294 of 1970 are these.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 15  

The  Regional   Transport  Authority,   Bareilly  fixed  the strength of  Chandausi-Rajghat route  at  5  stage  carriage permits. The  appellant and the respondent No. 3 applied for grant  of   permits.  The   Regional  Transport   Authority, Bareilly, by order dated 2 October, 1961 instead of granting five permits,  increased the  strength of  the route  to  15 permits and  granted one  permit each  to the appellant, the respondent No.  3 and  13 others.  The permit granted to the appellant was valid from 9 June, 1961 to 8 June 1964.      The unsuccessful  appellants filed  appeals against the order. By an order dated 28 March, 1963, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal  at Lucknow  allowed all the nine appeals and remanded the matter to the Regional Transport Authority, Bareilly,  for   reconsideration.  The   Regional  Transport Authority, Bareilly,  by  an  order  dated  28  April,  1964 granted five  permits, one  of  which  was  granted  to  the respondent No. 1. The appellant was not granted a permit.      The Regional  Transport Authority, Bareilly had, in the meanwhile, 20  February, 1963, increased the strength of the routes from  5 to  15 and  invited applications. Respondents No. 4, 5 and 7 applied for the grant of permits.      The appellant  filed Writ  Petition  No.  750  of  1964 before the  Judges of  the High  Court sitting  at  Lucknow, challenging the  order of  the Appellate  Tribunal, Lucknow, dated 28th  March, 1963 as well as the order of the Regional Transport Authority,  Bareilly dated  28 April,  1964. On  9 June 1966  the appellant  succeeded in his Writ Petition No. 750 of  1964. The  order of the Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow, dated 28  March, 1963  and the Regional Transport Authority, Bareilly,  dated   28  April,  1964  were  quashed  and  the Appellate Tribunal  was directed  to re-hear  the appeals on merits.      On 1  November, 1965, the Regional Transport Authority, Bareilly, rejected  the application of the appellant for the renewal of  his permit on the ground that the permit granted to him originally was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal by an order  dated 28  March, 1963.  The appellant preferred an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal and succeeded on 8 January, 1968. On 17 June, 1968, the Appellate Tribunal, in pursuance of the  orders of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 750 of 1964, issued  notice to  the 15 persons who had been granted permits originally  and the  9 persons,  who  had  preferred appeals, regarding  rehearing of  the appeals.  Against  the said order, the respondent No. 3 509 filed Writ  Petition No.  4213 of  1968 in the High Court at Allahabad. The  writ petition  was admitted and a stay order was granted.  However, on 25 April, 1968, the stay order was vacated.      The Appellate  Tribunal at  Lucknow,  pursuant  to  the orders in  Writ Petition  No. 750 of 1964, heard the appeals and directed  the Regional  Transport Authority, Bareilly to grant one  permanent stage  carriage permit  to each  of the respondents Nos.  10 to  12. Inasmuch  as the  appellant was granted a  permit in pursuance of the order in Writ Petition No. 750  of 1964,  the Appellate  Tribunal did  not think it necessary to pass any order in his case.      Respondent No.  1  and  respondent  No.  3  filed  writ petition No.  3294 of  1970 in  the High Court at Allahabad. One of the grounds in the writ petition was that the Lucknow Bench of  the Allahabad  High Court  had no  jurisdiction to entertain and  decide the  writ petition  No. 750  of  1964, because  the   dispute  arose   at  Bareilly  in  Rohilkhand Division, which was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Allahabad High  Court, sitting  at  Allahabad,  and  it  had

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 15  

nothing to  do with  the  Oudh  territory.  The  matter  was referred to the Full Bench.      In Civil  Appeal No.  1941 of 1972 the appellants filed writ petition  No. 470  of 1971 in the High Court at Lucknow for a  writ  of  certiorari  for  quashing  order  dated  11 December,  1970   passed   by   the   Deputy   Director   of Consolidation, Shahjahanpur,  with headquarters  at Lucknow. The appellants  filed objections  under  section  9  of  the Consolidation of  Holdings Act,  1954. Their objections were allowed by  the Consolidation  officer. On  appeal the order was  upheld   by  the   Settlement  Officer,  Consolidation, Shahjahanpur. The  respondent No.  1 to  went up in revision and the  Deputy Director,  Consolidation, on   11  December, 1970, set  aside the  order. It  is this  order which  forms subject-matter of  writ petition  No. 4170  of 1971.  On  26 July, 1971  the writ petition was listed for orders before a Division Bench  consisting of  the Chief Justice of the High Court and  another learned  Judge sitting  at  Lucknow.  The Registry of  the High  Court at  Lucknow reported  that  the petition  related   to  the  District  of  Shahjahanpur  and question was  raised  as  to  the  competency  of  the  writ petition  being   presented  before  the  Bench  sitting  at Lucknow. The matter eventually came before the Full Bench.      Criminal Appeal  No. 254  of 1974  arises  out  of  the Criminal Revision No. 270 of 1973 filed in the High Court at Allahabad.  The  revision  relates  to  the  sentence  under section 25  of the  Arms Act passed by the Temporary Civil & Sessions Judge, Rae Bareli. Question arose as to whether the revision should  have been  filed before  the Lucknow Bench. Eventually the matter came before the Full Bench.      It is in this context that the following five questions were referred for decision to the Full Bench :           "(1) Can a case falling within the jurisdiction of                the Lucknow  Bench of this Court be presented                at Allahabad ? 510           (2)  Can the Judges sitting at Allahabad summarily                dismiss  a   case  presented   at   Allahabad                pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Lucknow                Bench ?           (3)   Can a case pertaining to the jurisdiction of                Lucknow Bench,  presented and  entertained at                Allahabad, be  decided finally  by the Judges                sitting at  Allahabad, without there being an                order as  contemplated by  the second proviso                to  Article   14  of   the  U.P.  High  Court                (Amalgamation) order, 1948 ?           "(4)   What is  the meaning  of the expression "in                respect of  cases arising  in such  areas  in                oudh" used  in first proviso to Article 14 of                the High  Court (Amalgamation)  order, 1948 ?                Has this  expression reference  to the  place                where the  case originated or to the place of                the sitting  of the  last Court  of authority                whose decree  or order is being challenged in                the proceedings before the High Court ?           (5)     Whether  this   writ   petition   can   be                entertained, heard  and decided by the Judges                sitting at Lucknow ?      The majority  view of the Full Bench gave the following answers:-           "(1) A  case falling  within the  jurisdiction  of                Judges at  Lucknow  should  be  presented  at                Lucknow and not at Allahabad.           (2)   However, if  such a  case  is  presented  at

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 15  

              Allahabad, the  Judges  at  Allahabad  cannot                summarily dismiss  it only  for that  reason.                The case should be returned for filing before                the Judges  at Lucknow and where the case has                been mistakenly  or inadvertently entertained                at Allahabad,  a direction  should be made to                the High  Court office to transmit the papers                of the case to Lucknow.           (3)   A case pertaining to the jurisdiction of the                Judges at  Lucknow and  presented before  the                Judges at  Allahbad cannot  be decided by the                Judges at  Allahabad in  the  absence  of  an                order contemplated  by the  second proviso to                Article 14 of the Amalgamation order, 1948.           (4)   The expression  "in respect of cases arising                in such  areas in  oudh" used  in  the  first                proviso to  Article  14  of  the  High  Court                (Amalgamation) order,  1948, refers  to legal                proceedings, including  civil cases, criminal                cases, petitions  under Articles 226, 227 and                228 of  the Constitution  and petitions under                Articles 132  133 and 134 of the Constitution                instituted  before   the  Judges  sitting  at                Lucknow and having their origin, in the sense                explained in the majority judgment in such 511                areas  in  oudh  as  the  Chief  Justice  may                direct. The expression "arising in such areas                in oudh"  refers to  the place where the case                originated in  the  sense  explained  in  the                majority  judgment   and  not  to  the  place                sitting of  the last court or authority whose                decree or  order is  being challenged  in the                proceeding before the High Court.           (5)   The Lucknow  Bench have  no jurisdiction  to                hear writ petition No. 750 of 1964 which gave                rise to writ petition No. 3294 of 1970."      The United  Provinces High Courts (Amalgamation) order, 1948, hereinafter  referred to as the order, was promulgated under section  229 of the Government of India Act, 1935. The order came  into effect  on the  appointed day,  namely,  26 July, 1948.  "Existing High  Court" in  the order  means the High Court  referred to  in Section 219 of the Government of India Act as the High Court in Allahabad and the Chief Court in Oudh.  As from  the appointed  day,  the  High  Court  at Allahabad and  the Chief  Court in Oudh shall constitute one High Court  by the  name of  the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad referred to as "the new High Court" (Paragraph 3).      The two  crucial provisions  are Paragraphs 7 and 14 in the order.  The High Court referred to the provisions of the order as  Articles but  we have  referred  to  the  same  as Paragraphs. Paragraph 7 is as follows :           "7. (1)  The new High Court shall have, in respect      of  the   whole  of  the  United  Provinces,  all  such      original, appellate  and other  jurisdiction as,  under      the law  in force immediately before the appointed day,      is exercisable  in respect of any part of that Province      by either of the existing High Courts.           (2) The  new High Court shall also have in respect      of any  areas outside  the United  Provinces  all  such      original, appellate and other jurisdiction as under the      law in  force immediately  before the  appointed day is      exercisable in  respect of  that area by the High Court      in Allahabad."      Paragraph 14 is as follows:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 15  

         "14. The  new  High  Court,  and  the  judges  and      division courts  thereof, shall  sit at Allahabad or at      such other  places in the United Provinces as the Chief      Justice may,  with the  approval of the Governor of the      United Provinces, appoint :           Provided that  unless the  Governor of  the United      Provinces with  the concurrence  of the  Chief Justice,      otherwise directs,  such judges  of the  new High Court      not less than two in number, as the Chief Justice, may,      from time  to time  nominate, shall  sit at  Lucknow in      order to exercise in respect of 512      cases arising  in such  areas in  oudh,  as  the  Chief      Justice may  direct, the jurisdiction and power for the      time being vested in the new High Court :           Provided further that the Chief Justice may in his      discretion order  that  any  case  or  class  of  cases      arising in the said areas shall be heard at Allahabad."      The High  Court considered  paragraphs 7  and 14 of the Orders to  mean that  the new  High Court  has its  seat  at Allahabad which  is the permanent seat. The reasons given by the High  Court are  three. First,  paragraph 3 of the order which states  that there  will be one High Court by the name of the  High Court of Judicature at Allahabad indicates that the permanent  seat is  at  Allahabad.  Second,  the  second proviso to  paragraph 14 of the order which confers power on the Justice  in his  discretion to  order that  any case  or class of  cases arising  in Oudh  areas shall  be  heard  at Allahabad, shows  that there  is one  identifiable permanent seat and  that is  the principal  seat of  the High Court at Allahabad. Third,  the words  "the new  High Court  and  the Judges and  division courts  thereof, shall sit at Allahabad or at such other places in the United Provinces as the Chief Justice may, with the approval of the Governor of the United Provinces, appoint"  occurring  in  the  main  provision  of paragraph 14  of the order mean that the word "or" occurring between the  words "Allahabad" and "at such other places" is to be read as "and".      The second matter decided by the High Court is that the Judges at Lucknow Bench will hear cases arising in specified Oudh areas as the Chief Justice directs. The High Court held as follows.  It is  open to  the Chief Justice to reduce the areas in  Oudh referred  to in the list proviso to paragraph 14 of the order and further that the Bench, at Lucknow Bench will hear  cases arising  in specified  Oudh  areas  as  the currence  of   the  Chief  Justice.  The  first  proviso  to paragraph 11 of the order which speaks of such areas in oudh followed by  the words  as the  Chief Justice  may  direct", shows that  areas in  Oudh will be such as will be specified by the  Chief Justice.  Under the first proviso to paragraph 14 of  the order  all cases  arising in  areas  in  Oudh  as directed be the Chief Justice will be heard at Lucknow.      The High  Court further  held  as  follows.  The  first proviso to  Paragraph 14 of the order consists of two parts. The first part requires that as least two Judges will sit at Lucknow. The  insistence on  Lucknow as  a place  of sitting under the  first proviso  overrides the  discretion  of  the Chief Justice  to appoint  any other place with the approval of the Governor because until the Governor otherwise directs with the  concurrence of  the Chief  Justice,  Lucknow  will remain a  place of  sitting. The  second part  of the  first proviso to  paragraph 14  of the  Order, namely  that Judges sitting at Lucknow shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of cases arising  in such  oudh areas, specifies the work which the Judges  at Lucknow  will do,  which can  be described as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 15  

amounting in  substance to  a statutory  allocation  of  the category of 513 cases  mentioned  there  to  the  Judges  at  Lucknow.  Such allocation necessarily implies that other Judges will not do that class of work, unless it is also expressly allocated to them.      The third  matter decided  by the  High  Court  is  the interpretation of  the second proviso to paragraph 14 of the order, which  confers power  on the  Chief  Justice  in  his discretion to  order that any case or class cases arising in the said  areas shall  be heard at Allahabad. The High Court expressed these  views. This  proviso shows  that  Judges  a Lucknow Bench  are alone  competent to hear cases arising in the specified  oudh areas  and that  the order  of the Chief Justice under  the second  proviso alone  enables such cases being heard at Allahabad. The second proviso to paragraph 14 of the  order is  held by  the High  Court to  mean that the Chief Justice  has power not only to make a order in respect of cases  which have been filed at and are pending a Lucknow but also cases which have not yet been filed or which may be filed in future at Lucknow.      The meaning  of the would "heard" in the second proviso to paragraph  14 of  the order is not confined to the actual hearing of  cases but  will include the proceeding stages of the institution  of a  case and of its, being entertained by the High  Court. If  cases arising  in  Oudh  areas  can  be transferred  by   the  Chief  Justice  for  being  heard  at Allahabad, it  obviously means  that cases  arising in  Oudh areas are  cases which  are instituted because they arise in Oudh areas.  The second  proviso means that cases covered by the direction  of the  Chief Justice cannot be instituted at Lucknow but only at Allahabad for being heard there.      The  second  proviso  to  paragraph  14  of  the  order qualifies the  second part  of the first proviso. The second proviso deals  with cases  arising  in  the  specified  Oudh areas, and  provides an  exception to the rule stated in the second part  of the first proviso. The effect of reading the two provisos  together is  that the  Judges at  Lucknow  are alone competent  to hear cases arising in the specified oudh areas except  where the  Chief Justice  orders that any such case or  class of cases shall be heard at Allahabad. On this reasoning the  High Court has that paragraph 14 of the order first provides  for the  place of  sitting of the Judges and second specifies  the category  of cases which will be heard by them.      The High  Court also  said as follows. The jurisdiction defined by paragraph 7 of the order vests in the entire body of Judges.  It is the jurisdiction enjoyed by every Judge of the High  Court and  extends to  all  cases  throughout  the territories of  that State.  Where that jurisdiction will be exercised is a matter to be determined under paragraph 14 of the order.  It may  be exercised  at Allahabad  or it may be exercised at  Lucknow or at any other place appointed by the Chief Justice under paragraph 14. The Judges at Lucknow hear cases arising  in such  areas in  Oudh as  the Chief Justice directs. It is open to the Chief Justice to reduce the areas from time to time. Cases arising in the areas so removed can no longer  be heard  at  Lucknow.  They  will  be  heard  at Allahabad or  at any  other place  appointed under  the main pro- 514 vision of  paragraph 14.  A stage  may  be  reached  in  the process of  reduction where  only one area of Oudh alone may remain with  the Judges  sitting at  Lucknow. There  is also

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 15  

power in  the Chief Justice, by virtue of second proviso, to increase by  order that  classes of  cases arising  in  Oudh areas shall  be heard at Allahabad. Finally, the arrangement that some Judges must sit at Lucknow may be abolished by the Governor with the concurrence of the Chief Justice.      The fourth  question on  which the High Court expressed its opinion  is on  the meaning  of "cases  arising in  such areas in  Oudh". The  High  Court  expressed  the  following views. A distinction arises between civil and criminal cases on the  one hand and writ petitions under Article 226 on the other. The  contention based  on Article  225  that  Lucknow Bench will  not have jurisdiction under Article 226 is wrong because the  jurisdiction of  the High Court is not only the jurisdiction exercisable  before the  Constitution came into force but  also the jurisdiction which could be conferred on the High  Court in  future. The  Lucknow  Bench,  therefore, exercises jurisdiction under Article 226.      Though the  Lucknow  Bench  can  exercise  jurisdiction under Articles 226, 227 and 228, there is limitation on such jurisdiction as  far as  the Lucknow Bench is concerned. The Lucknow Bench  will have jurisdiction under Article 226 only in cases  where the  right of  the  petitioner  arose  first within the  oudh  areas.  Where  an  original  order  passed outside the  oudh areas  has been  reversed or  modified  or confirmed at  a place  within the  Oudh areas  it is not the place where  the ultimate  or the  appellate order is passed that will attract jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench. In most cases where  an appeal  or revision  will lie  to the  State Government, the  order will  be made at Lucknow. In all such cases, if it be held that the place where a case can be said to arise  is where the ultimate or appellate order is passed by the  authority, the  Judges at  Lucknow would  then  have jurisdiction even  though the  controversy originally  arose and the  original order was made by an authority outside the specified Oudh  areas. In all cases a writ petition filed in the High  Court would be a case arising at Lucknow. It is on this reasoning  that the  High Court  strictly confined  the jurisdiction of  the Lucknow  Bench under Article 226 to the right which  the petitioner  pursues throughout the original proceedings, the appellate proceedings and thereafter in the High Court.  The right  of the petitioner is the right which first arose  and if  the place  where the  right first arose will be  within the  Oudh areas  then the Lucknow Bench will have jurisdiction.      With regard  to the  civil and criminal cases, the High Court said that the Lucknow Bench would have jurisdiction in a civil  case where  the cause  of action  wholly or in part arose. In  a criminal  case the  Lucknow  Bench  would  have jurisdiction where the offence has been committed.      The conclusion  as well  as the  reasoning of  the High Court that  the permanent  seat of  the  High  Court  is  at Allahabad is  not quite sound the order states that the High Court shall  sit as  the new  High Court  and the Judges and Division Bench thereof shall sit at Allahabad or at 515 such other  places in  the United  Provinces  as  the  Chief Justice may, with the approval of the Governor of the United Provinces, appoint.  The word  "or" cannot be read as "and". If the  precise words  used are  plain and unambiguous, they are bound  to be construed in their ordinary sense. The mere fact that  the results  of a  statute may be unjust does not entitle a  court to  refuse to  give it effect. If there are two different  interpretations of  the words  in an Act, the Court will adopt that which is just, reasonable and sensible rather than  that which  is none  of those  things.  If  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 15  

inconvenience is  an absurd  inconvenience,  by  reading  an enactment in  its ordinary sense, whereas if it is read in a manner in  which it  is capable,  though not  in an ordinary sense, there  would not  be any  inconvenience at all; there would be  reason why one should not read it according to its ordinary grammatical  meaning. Where the words are plain the Court would not make any alteration.      The arguments which were presented at the Bar on behalf of the  Bar Association  at Allahabad  as well  as  the  Bar Association at  Lucknow suggested  that those  views can  be described to  be protagonists  of Allahabad or of Lucknow on the one  hand and antagonists to Allahabad or Lucknow on the other. The  construction is  to be dispassionate without any leaning either  in favour  or against  either of  the places mentioned in the Order.      The order  describes the  High Court  as the  new  High Court. The  two High Courts have amalgamated in the new High Court. The  seat is  at Allahabad or at such other places as may be  determined.  There  is  no  permanence  attached  to Allahabad. If that were the intention of the Order, the word "and" instead  of the  word "or" would have been used. Other places  may   be  determined   by  the   Chief  Justice   in consultation with  the Governor.  It is  left to prudence of the authorities  mentioned as to what other places should be determined. In  the normal  understanding of the matters, it is left  to the  discretion of the authorities as to whether the seats  at Allahabad  as  well  as  at  Lucknow  will  be changed. Both  places  may  continue.  Both  places  may  be changed. Lucknow  is the  seat of  the Government. Allahabad has also  the history  that the  High Court was there before the order. Lucknow has been the principal place of oudh. The order aimed  at giving  status to  the Chief  Commissioner’s Court as  that of the High Court. It is difficult to foresee the future  whether the authorities will change the location to other  places but  no idea  of permanent seat can be read into the  order. One  can only  say that  it is the wish and hope that  both  Allahabad  and  Lucknow  will  be  the  two important seats  so that history is not wiped out and policy is not changed.      The conclusion of the High Court that the first proviso to paragraph  14 of  the order  means that the areas in oudh may be  decreased is not the correct construction. The first proviso deals with nomination by the Chief Justice from time to time  of not  less than two Judges sitting at Lucknow. An argument was  advanced on  behalf of  the Bar Association at Allahabad that  the words  "not less  than  two  in  number" indicate that the order did not contemplate the existence of a Division  Bench. The  words "from  time to  time" and "not less than two in 516 number" indicate  the minimum  as two and that more than two Judges may  be there.  The words "from time to time" suggest not only  that Judges  may come from Allahabad to Lucknow or vice versa  but also  that the  number may  be increased  or decreased according  to exigencies.  The only  limitation on the number is that it shall not be less than two.      The High Court held that the Chief Justice might reduce the areas  in Oudh  because the  words "as the Chief Justice may direct" occur immediately after the words "in such areas in oudh".  This reason  is fallacious. First, the words from time to  time" apply only to the nomination of Judges by the Chief Justice  to sit  at Lucknow and not to the words "such areas  in  oudh  as  the  Chief  Justice  may  direct".  The important words  in the first proviso to paragraph 14 of the order are  "such Judges of the new High Court, not less than

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 15  

two in  number, as the Chief Justice, may, from time to time nominate, shall  sit at  Lucknow". These words indicate that the power of the Chief Justice to nominate Judges, who shall sit at Lucknow, is to be exercised from time to time meaning thereby that  the power  can be exercised as often as may be necessary. Second, the words "in respect of cases arising in such areas  in oudh,  as the Chief Justice may direct" occur in the collocation of words "that the Judges nominated shall sit at  Lucknow in  order to  exercise in  respect of  cases arising in  such areas  in Oudh,  as the  Chief Justice  may direct, the jurisdiction and power for the time being vested in the  new High Court". The words "as the Chief Justice may direct" mean  that the  Chief Justice exercises the power to direct  what   the  areas   in  oudh  are  for  exercise  of jurisdiction by  Judges at Lucknow Bench. Once that power is exercised it is exhausted. The reason is that the areas once determined should  hold good  on account of certainty and to dispel problems  being created from time to time by increase or decrease of areas.      The sum  and substance  as well  as the  spirit of  the order is  that under  the  first  proviso  to  paragraph  14 Lucknow becomes  the seat  in respect  of cases  arising  in areas in  oudh. There is no other provision except paragraph 11 in the order as to what the areas in oudh are or will be. Historically, the  territories with 12 Districts of Lucknow, Faizabad, Sultanpur,  Rai Bareli,  Pratap  Garh,  Barabanki, Gonda, Baharaich,  Sitapur, Kheri,  Hardoi and  Unnao,  were brought under the then British Crown within the jurisdiction of the  Court  of  the  Judicial  Commissioner  of  oudh  at Lucknow. This  was under the Government of India order dated 4 February  1856. (See:  Laws of  non-Regulations  Provinces 1863 by  Lord G. Campell, Judicial Commissioner oudh). In 19 5  oudh   Courts  Act   was  passed  by  the  Uttar  Pradesh Legislature. The  Chief  Court  (If  oudh  with  only  Chief Justice and four Puisne Judges was established replacing the Judicial Commissioners  Court. In  1937 by the Government of India (Adaptation of Indian Laws) order 1937 it was provided that the  Chief Court of Oudh shall consist of Chief Justice and  such  other  Judges  as  may  be  appointed  under  the Government of  India Act,  1935. Later,  two more additional Judges were appointed. In this background the 517 Order of 1948 came into existence and the new High Court was established with  its seats  at Allahabad  and Lucknow.  It, therefore, follows  that when the order came into existence, it was  for the  Chief Justice  to direct the areas in oudh, which would be within the jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench.      Under paragraph  7 of the order, the new High Court has jurisdiction in  respect of  whole of  the United  Provinces exercisable in  respect of  any part  of  that  province  by either of the existing High Court. Paragraph 14 of the order deals with  the seats  of the  High Court  at Allahabad  and Lucknow. It is only the first proviso to paragraph 14 of the order which  states that  unless the  Governor of the United Provinces  with   the  concurrence   of  the  Chief  Justice otherwise directs,  not less  than two  Judges shall  sit at Lucknow in  order to exercise in respect of cases arising in such areas in oudh, the jurisdiction and power vested in the new High  Court. The  first proviso  to paragraph  14 of the Orders  specifies  the  instrumentality  through  which  the jurisdiction vested  in the new High Court will be exercised in respect of cases arising in oudh. The direction which the Chief Justice  has given  once with  regard to  the areas in oudh remains unaltered.      Section 14 of the General Clauses Act states that where

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 15  

by any  Act any  power is  conferred then unless a different intention appears,  the power  may be exercised from time to time as occasion requires. In the present case section 14 of General Clauses  Act cannot  have any  application because a different intention  appears in  paragraph 14  of the order. The words "from time to time" occur in the first part of the first proviso  to paragraph  14 of the order, in relation to the power  of the  Chief Justice  to nominate  Judges of the Lucknow Bench  from time  to time.  The second  part of  the first proviso  to paragraph  14 of the order which speaks of cases arising in such areas in oudh as the Chief Justice may direct do  not attract  the application  of the  words "from time to  time." The  second part  of the  first  proviso  to paragraph 14  shows that  such areas  in oudh  as the  Chief Justice may  direct are  areas in respect of which once such direction is  given, there  is no  intention in the order to exercise such power of direction from time to time. 518      The conclusion of the High Court that the areas in oudh could be  increased or  decreased by  the Chief Justice from time to  time is  set aside. It is only if Lucknow will ever cease to  be a  seat of  the High Court when the Governor of the Uttar  Pradesh with the concurrence of the Chief Justice so directs  that the  first proviso  to paragraph  14 of the order both  with regard  to sitting of Judges at Lucknow and exercising jurisdiction in respect of cases arising in areas in oudh  will cease  to have any significance in relation to Lucknow.      The meaning  of the  expression "in  respect  of  cases arising in  such areas  in oudh"  in the  first  proviso  to paragraph 14  of the  order was  answered by  the High Court that with  regard to applications under Article 226 the same will be  "a case  arising within  the areas in oudh, only if the right  of the  petitioner in  such an  application arose first at  a place  within an  area in  oudh. The implication according to  the High  Court is  that if  the right  of the petitioner arose first at any place outside any area in oudh and if  the subsequent  orders either  in the  revisional or appellate stage  were passed  by an authority within an area in oudh  then in such cases the Lucknow Bench would not have any jurisdiction.  The factor which weighed heavily with the High Court is that in most cases where an appeal or revision would lie  to the State Government, the impugned order would be made  at Lucknow  and on  that view  practically all writ petitions would arise at Lucknow.      The conclusion  as well  as the  reasoning of  the High Court is  incorrect. It  is unsound  because the  expression "cause of  action" in an application under Article 226 would be as  the expression  is understood  and if  the  cause  of action  arose   because  of   the  appellate  order  or  the revisional order  which came  to be  passed at  Lucknow then Lucknow would  have jurisdiction  though the  original order was passed  at a  place outside the areas in oudh. It may be that the original order was in favour of the person applying for a writ. In such case an adverse appellate order might be the cause  of action.  The expression  "cause of  action  is well-known. If  the cause of action arises wholly or in part at a  place within  the specified  oudh areas,  the  Lucknow Bench will  have jurisdiction. If the cause of action arises wholly within  the specified  oudh areas, it is indisputable that the  Lucknow Bench would have exclusive jurisdiction in such a  matter. If the cause of action arises in part within the specified areas in oudh it would be open to the litigant who is  the dominus  litis to have his forum conveniens. The litigant has  the right  to go  to a Court where part of his

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 15  

cause of  action arises.  In such  cases, it is incorrect to say that  the litigant  chooses any  particular  Court.  The choice is by reason of the 519 jurisdiction of  the Court  being attracted by part of cause of action  arising within  the jurisdiction  of  the  Court. Similarly, if the cause of action can be said to have arisen part within  specified areas  in oudh  and part  outside the specified oudh  areas, the  litigant will have the choice to institute proceedings  either at  Allahabad or  Lucknow. The Court will find out in each case whether the jurisdiction of the Court rightly attracted by the alleged cause of action.      To sum  up. Our conclusions are as follows. First there is no  permanent seat  of the  High Court  at Allahabad. The seats  at  Allahabad  and  at  Lucknow  may  be  changed  in accordance with  the provisions  of the  order. Second,  the Chief Justice  of the High Court has no power to increase or decrease the  areas in  oudh from time to time. The areas in oudh have  been determined  once by  the Chief  Justice and, therefore, there  is no scope for changing the areas. Third. the Chief  Justice has  power under  the second  proviso  to paragraph 14  of the  order to direct in his discretion that any case  or class  of cases  arising in oudh areas shall be heard at  Allahabad. Any  case or  class of  cases are those which are instituted at Lucknow. The interpretation given by the High  Court that  the word "heard" confers powers on the Chief Justice  to order  that any  case or  class  of  cases arising in  oudh areas  shall  be  instituted  or  filed  at Allahabad, instead  of Lucknow  is wrong.  The word  "heard" means that cases which have already been instituted or filed at Lucknow  may in the discretion of the Chief Justice under the second  proviso to paragraph 14 of the order he directed to be  heard at  Allahabad. Fourth, the expression "cause of action" with  regard to  a civil matter means that it should be left  to the litigant to institute cases at Lucknow Bench or at  Allahabad Bench  according to  the  cause  of  action arising wholly or in part within either of the areas. If the cause of  action arises  wholly within  oudh areas  then the Lucknow Bench  will have  jurisdiction.  Similarly,  if  the cause of action arises wholly outside the specified areas in oudh then  Allahabad will have jurisdiction. If the cause of action in  part arises  in the specified oudh areas and part of the  cause of  action arises outside the specified areas, it  will   be  open  to  the  litigant  to  frame  the  case appropriately to  attract the jurisdiction either at Lucknow or at  Allahabad. Fifth,  a criminal  case arises  where the offence has  been committed  or otherwise as provided in the Criminal Procedure  Code. That will attract the jurisdiction of  the  Court  at  Allahabad  or  Lucknow.  In  some  cases depending  on   the  facts   and  the   provision  regarding jurisdiction, it may arise in either place.      Applications  under  Article  226  will  similarly  lie either at  Lucknow or  at Allahabad  as the  applicant  will allege that  the whole  of cause  of action  or part  of the cause of  action arose at Lucknow within the specified areas of oudh  or part  of the  cause of  action arose  at a place outside the specified oudh areas. 520      The answers  given by the High Court to the first three questions are  correct save  as modified  by our conclusions aforesaid.      The answer  given by  the  High  Court  to  the  fourth question is  set aside. The meaning of cases arising in oudh areas will  be found  out by appropriate courts in the light of this judgment.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 15  

    The answer  to the  fifth question  is discharged.  The matters are  sent back  to the  High Court  for disposal  in accordance with this judgment.      Parties will Pay and bear their own costs. V.M.K.                                Appeal partly allowed. 521