# N. RAY, C.J., K. K. MATHEW v. R. KRISHNA !YER AND

- **Citation:** [1976] 1 S.C.R. 505
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1975-08-29
- **Case number:** writ petition No. 3294 of 1970
- **Bench:** A. N. Ray, K. K. Mathew, V. R. Krishna !Yer, B S. Murtaza Fazal Ali
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/n-ray-c-j-k-k-mathew-v-r-krishna-yer-and-6624
- **Pages:** 16

## Headnote

c
D
E
F
G
H
United Prol'fllces High Courts (A nialga1nario11) Order, 1948, l'aragraphs 7
and 14-Seat of the High Court-Allahabad, if the pennane11f ~·eat of Hit?h Court
-Chief Justice. if can reduce the areas in Oudh.
, lntQrpretation of Statutes-Plain and una1nbiguous words, 11'/ien could be
interpreted in their ordinary sense.
Paragraph 7 of the United Provinces High Courts (Amalgamation) Order,
1948, provides that (I) The new Jligh Court shall have, in respect of the whole
of the lTnited Provinces, all such original, appellate and other jurisdiction as,
under the la\v in force immediately before the appointed day, is exercisable in.
respect cf any part of that province by either of the existing High Court; (2)
The ne\V 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 ima1ediately 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 Uni~ed Provinces a<; the Chief Justice may, with the approval of the Gov~rnor
of the United Provinces, appoint.
The first proviso to 'this paragraph provides.
that unless the Governor of the United Provinces v.,rith the concurrence of the
Chief Justice, otherwise directs, such judges of the riew High Court, not
les'>
than t\•io in nun1ber, as th~ 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, ~s the Chief Justice may direct, the jurisdiction and po\.ver 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 cf c~(ses arising in the said areas shall be heard at Allahabad.
Respcndent 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 I_ ucknow Bench of the Allahab'1d High Court had no j'urisdiction to
entertain and decide the writ petition No. 750 of 1964 filed by the appellant.
hecausc the dispute aro~e at Bareilly in Rohilkhand Division, which was within
the exclu&ive jurisdiction of the All~habad High Court. sitting at Allahabad, and
it had nothing to do with the Oudh territory.
The matter wa<; referred to the
Full Bench.
Writ Petition No. 470 of 1971 filed in the High Court at Lucknow and Crin1inal Revision JSo. 270 of 1973 filed in the High Court at Allahabad were aboreferred 10 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 ca.•e falling \.vithin the jurisdiction of Judges ut Lucknow should)
be pre<;ented at Lucknow and not at Allahabad.
(2) H0'1.'ever. if such a case is presented at Allahab<l!d the Judges at
Allahabad cannot summarily dismiss it only for that reason.
Thecase should be returned for filing before the Judges at Lucknow and
where the case has been mistakenly or inadvertently entertained
at
,\1lahahaJ, 6· direction shoL!ld be m1de to the High Court Office t<>
transmit the papers of the case to Lucknow,
2-L925SupCl/75
506
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976] 1 .s.c.R.
· (3) A case pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Judges at Luckno,y an.d
(4)
presented before the Judges at Allahabad ::annot be decided by tbe
Judges at Allahabad in the absence of an order contemplated bv --
the second proviso to Article 14 of the Amalgamation Order. 1948~
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,
crin1inal cases, petitions under Articles 226, 227 and 228 of the Constitution and petitions under Articles 132, 133 and
134
of
the
Constitut

## Text

_Characters 0–39,433 of 47,725. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39433 for what follows._

•
•
A
NASIR UDDIN
v .
STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
August 29, 1975
505
(A. N. RAY, C.J., K. K. MATHEW, V. R. KRISHNA !YER AND
B
S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.)
c
D
E
F
G
H
United Prol'fllces High Courts (A nialga1nario11) Order, 1948, l'aragraphs 7
and 14-Seat of the High Court-Allahabad, if the pennane11f ~·eat of Hit?h Court
-Chief Justice. if can reduce the areas in Oudh.
, lntQrpretation of Statutes-Plain and una1nbiguous words, 11'/ien could be
interpreted in their ordinary sense.
Paragraph 7 of the United Provinces High Courts (Amalgamation) Order,
1948, provides that (I) The new Jligh Court shall have, in respect of the whole
of the lTnited Provinces, all such original, appellate and other jurisdiction as,
under the la\v in force immediately before the appointed day, is exercisable in.
respect cf any part of that province by either of the existing High Court; (2)
The ne\V 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 ima1ediately 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 Uni~ed Provinces a<; the Chief Justice may, with the approval of the Gov~rnor
of the United Provinces, appoint.
The first proviso to 'this paragraph provides.
that unless the Governor of the United Provinces v.,rith the concurrence of the
Chief Justice, otherwise directs, such judges of the riew High Court, not
les'>
than t\•io in nun1ber, as th~ 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, ~s the Chief Justice may direct, the jurisdiction and po\.ver 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 cf c~(ses arising in the said areas shall be heard at Allahabad.
Respcndent 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 I_ ucknow Bench of the Allahab'1d High Court had no j'urisdiction to
entertain and decide the writ petition No. 750 of 1964 filed by the appellant.
hecausc the dispute aro~e at Bareilly in Rohilkhand Division, which was within
the exclu&ive jurisdiction of the All~habad High Court. sitting at Allahabad, and
it had nothing to do with the Oudh territory.
The matter wa<; referred to the
Full Bench.
Writ Petition No. 470 of 1971 filed in the High Court at Lucknow and Crin1inal Revision JSo. 270 of 1973 filed in the High Court at Allahabad were aboreferred 10 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 ca.•e falling \.vithin the jurisdiction of Judges ut Lucknow should)
be pre<;ented at Lucknow and not at Allahabad.
(2) H0'1.'ever. if such a case is presented at Allahab<l!d the Judges at
Allahabad cannot summarily dismiss it only for that reason.
Thecase should be returned for filing before the Judges at Lucknow and
where the case has been mistakenly or inadvertently entertained
at
,\1lahahaJ, 6· direction shoL!ld be m1de to the High Court Office t<>
transmit the papers of the case to Lucknow,
2-L925SupCl/75
506
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976] 1 .s.c.R.
· (3) A case pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Judges at Luckno,y an.d
(4)
presented before the Judges at Allahabad ::annot be decided by tbe
Judges at Allahabad in the absence of an order contemplated bv --
the second proviso to Article 14 of the Amalgamation Order. 1948~
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,
crin1inal 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 judg!:nent
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 Co-crt.
(5) The Lucknow Bench have no jurisdiction to hear "\\'rit petition No.
750 of 1964 which gave rise to \Vrit petition.No. 3294 of 1970.
Two appea1s have b~e~ prefer~ed to this Court on the basis of special l:1ve
granted by this Court. One appeal is by certificate.
HELD: (i) If the precise words used are plain and unambiguous, they :ire
bound to be construed in their ordinary sense.
The mere fact that the results
of a statute may be unjust does not entitle a cowrt to refuse to give it effect. If
there are hvo different interpretations of the words in an Act, the Court will adopt
that \\'hich is just •. reasonable and sensible rather than _that which is none
of
those things.
If the inconvenience is an absurd inconvenience, by readir.g a_n
enactment in its ordinary sense, whereas if it is read in a manner in which it is
capabfe, though not in an ordinary sense, there would not be any inconvenience
at all; there \vould be reason why one should not read it according to its ordinary
grammatical mer.ning.
\Vhere the words an; plain the Court \\'OUld not n:ake
nny alteration.
[515A-Cl
(il) The \\1ord "or" in paragraph 14 cannot be read as "and"'. The Order
describes the J-Iigh Court as the new High Court. The t\VO High Courts have
-amalgama-led in the new High Coe.rt.
The
seat is
at Altahabad or ail
such
other
places
as
may
be . determined.
There
is
no permar:ence
attached to Allahabad. If that were the intention of the Order, the word ••and"
instead of the v-,:ord .. or". would have been used. Other places may be deterrr.ined 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 v.hethei the seats at Allahabad as v.·ell a·3 at Lucknow will be changed.
Both places may continue. Both places may be changed. Lucknow is the seat
of the Government.
Allahabad has aho the history that the High Court was ti.ere
before the Order. Lucknow has been the principal place of Oudh. The Order
aimed at giving sta~u·:> 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 icto
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 cut
and policy is not changed.
[515-A. D-G]
(iii) The reasoning of the High Court that the Chief Justice might reduce the
areas in OuQh 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 v.'ords 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 Justlc.e may. from time to time nominate, shall sit at Lucknow." These
words indicate that the power of the Chief Justice to nominate Judges, who s!::i.11
sit at-Lucknow is· to be exercised from time to time meaning thereby that the
po¥,;er can be exercised as often as may be necessary. Second, the words .. i::i
A
B
c
D
E
-· -'r
F
G
'
H
A
#
I
D
"
~'
c
D
E
F
G
..
{
H
NASIRUDDIN v. S.T.A.T. (Ray, C.J.)
5Q7
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 1nay 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 tin1e by increase or decrease of areas.
[516B-E]
(iv) Section 14 of General Clauses Act cannot have any application because
a different intention appears in paragraph 14 of the Order. 1517-D]
( v) ~fhe 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 \Vhat the areas in Oudh are or will be.
Historically, only the sa.me
12 Districts continued to be comprised in Oudh. When the 0'fder came into
existence in 1948, it was for the Chief Justice to direct the areas in Oudh \Vhich
would be \\'ithin 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 & CJ
(vi) 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 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]
CIVIL APPELLATE JUR!SDICTlON: Civil Appeals Nos. 1940-19.+J
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 anli 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 Tilhari,
B. C. Saxena and C. P. Lal for the Appe!lant in C.A. Nos. 19401941/72.
F. S. Nariman, G. L. Verma, S. P. Singh, R. P. Singh, S. K. Ba;rca
and Mrs. 5. 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 Associrrtion 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
&nch of the High Court at Allahabad.
508
S1)PREME COURT REPORTS
Il 1976] 1 s.C.R.
Civil Appeal No. 1940 of 1972 arises out of the Writ Petition. No.
3294 of 1970.
Writ Petition No. 3294 of 1970 was fileU before the
Lucknow 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 d!fect1on
that the judgment of the High Court sitting at Lucknow dated
15
September, 1966 in Writ Petition No. 750 of 1964 is a nullity.
A
B
The facts in Writ Petition No. 3294 of
1970 arc these.
Tite
Regional Transport Authority, Bareilly fixed the strength of ChandausiRajghat route at 5 stage carriage permits.
The appellant and the respondent No. 3 applied for the grant of permits.
The Regional Trans.-
port Authority, Bareilly, l<Y order dated 2 October, 1961 instead of
granting five permits, increased the strength of the route. to 15 permits
C
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,.1961to8 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 th<;. nine appeals and remanded the matte;· to
D
the Regional Transport Authority, Barcilly, for reconsideration.
The
Regional Transport Anthority, Bareilly, by an order dated 28
April,
1964 granted five permits, one of which was granted to the respondent
No. J.
The appellant was-not granted a permit.
The Regional Transport Authority, Bareilly had, in the meanwhiie.
on 20 February, 1963, increased the strength of the routes from 5 to
15 and invited applications.
Respondents No. 4, 5 anU 7 applied for
the grnnt of permits.
The appellant filed Writ Petition No. 750 of 1964' before the Judges
of th,; High Court sitting at Lucknow, challenging the order of the
Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow, dated 28th March, l 963 as well as tire
order of the Regional Transport Authority. Bareillv dated 28 ,\pril,
1964.
On 9 June, 1966 the appellant succeeded in his Writ Petition
No. 750 of 1964.
The orders of the Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow,
dated 28 March, 1963 and the Regional Transport Authority, Barcilly,
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, Barc:Iiy,
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 lieen granted permits
originally and the 9 persons, who hat! preferred appeals, regarding rehearing of the appeals.
Against the said order~ tli.c respundent No. J
E
F
G
•
,.
....
+
•
...
•
•
..
B
c
D
E
F
G
NASIRUDD!N V. S.T.A.T. (Ray, C.J.)
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 peti.tion No. 150 of
1964, because the dispute arose at Bareilly in Rohilkhand Division,
which wds within 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.
Jn Civil Appeal No. 1941 of 1972 the appellants filed writ petition
No. 4 70 of 19 t 1 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 Luck·
now.
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
\Vent 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. 4'70 of 1971.
On 26 July, 197i the
writ petition was listed for or\jern before a Division Ber.oh 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
\vas raiszd as to the con1pet~ncy of the writ petition b~ing. pr-~scntcd
before the Bench sitting at Lucknow.
The matter eventually came
before the Full Bench.
Crimirial 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
hy 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
H
for Uccision to the Full Bench :
" ( 1) Can a case falling wlthin the .iurisdiction ol the Lucknow B~nch of this Court be presented at Allahabad?
,,
510
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976] l s.c.R.
(2) Can the Judges sitting at Allahabad summarily dismiss
a case presented at Allahabad pertaining to the jurisdicti_on of the Lucknow Bench ?
(3)
"(4)
Can a case pertaining to the jurisdiction of Lucknow
Bench, presented and entertaine_d _at Allahabad, be
decided finally by the Jul:lges s1ttmg at Allahabad,
without there bemg an order as contemplated by the
second proviso to Article 14 of the U.P. High Court
(Amalgamation) Order, 1948?
·
What is the meaning of the expression "in respect of
cases arising in such areas in Oudh" used in first pro·
visa 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 or authorjty whose decree or
order is being challenged in the proceedings before the
High Court?
( 5) Whether this writ petition can be entertained, heard
and c·ocided 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 l However, if such a case is presented at Allahabad, the
Judges at Allahaba<I 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 Allahaba<I, 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 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 i[l the first proviso to Article 14
of the High Court (Amalgamation)
Oider,
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
/
A
13
c
...
D
E
F
•
G
H
+
•
•
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
(5)
'
NASIRUDDIN v. s.T.A.T. (Ray, C.J.)
511
areas in Oudh as the Chief Justice may direct.
The
expression "atising in such areas in Oudh" refers to
the place where the case originated in the sense explained in the majority ju,\:lgment and not to the place
sitting of the last cou1t or authority whose decree or
order is being challenged in the proceeding before the
High Court.
The Lucknow Bench have no jurisdiction to hear writ
petition No. 750 of 1964 which gave rise to writ petition No. 3294 of 19/0."
The United Provinces High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948,
hereinafter referred to as the Order, was promu!i;ated under section 229
of the Govermnent of InC!ia 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 referre'd to in section 219 of the
Govermnent of India Act as L'ie 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 Ouclh shall con§till!te 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 141 in the Order.
The High Court referred to the provisions of the Order as Articles but
we have rcfcrr'*1 to the same as Paragraphs.
Paragraph 7 is as
follows:
"7. ('1) The new High Court shall have,, in respect of
the whoie 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 Uni1Jld 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 :
"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 Pro-,
H
vinces 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
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[J 976] 1 ~.C.R.
case~ arising in such areas in Oudh, as the Chief Justice may
direct, the j.urisdiction and power for the time being vested ill
in the new High Court :
Provided further that the Chief Justice may in his di•·
cretion 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 Order to
mean that the new High Court has its seat at Allahabad which is the
permanent scat.
The reasons gi_ven 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 Chief
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 th~ 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" oc.:urring
in the main provision of paragraph 14 of the Order mean that the v.wd
"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 Judge~ 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 first
proviso to paragraph 14 of the Order and further that the Bench at
Lucknow Bench will hear cases arising in specified Oudh are'1' as the
currence of the Chief Justice.
The first proviso to paragraph 14 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 ,,ill 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 O:.idh as
directed by 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 insistance on Luck··
now as a pluce 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 t.o paragraph 14 o.f tbe
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 \:lo, which can be described as
amounting in substance to a statutory allocation of the categoiy oi
A
•
B
c
D
E
F
G
•
•
t
H
•
IB
_,\.
E
iF
•
G
H
NASIRUD!JIN v. s.T.A.T. (Ray, C.J.)
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 oi
the second proviso to paragraph 14 of the Order, which confers power
on the Chiel. Justice in his discretion to order that any case or class of
cases arisin• in the said areas shal! be heard at Allahabad.
The Hii:h
Court expr~ssro these views.
This provisq shows
that Judges
at
Lucknow Bench arc 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 O;:der is held by the High
Court to mean that the ChieCJustice has power not only to make an
order in respect of cases which have been fil~cl at and are pending at
Lucknow but also cases which have not yet been filed or which may oe
filed in future at Lucknow.
The meaning of the wor\l "heard" in the second proviso to paragraph 14 of the Order is not confined to the actual hearing of cases but
will include the precetiing stages of 1hc institution of a case and of it,;
being entertained by the High Court. lf 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
ins.tituted because they arise in Oudh areas. The second proviso means
that case; covered by the direction of the Chief _Justice cannof be instituted at Lucknow but only at Allahaba\l for being heard there.
The second proviso to paragraph 14 of the
Order qualifies th:
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 anv such case or class of cases shall
be heard 'it Allahabad.
On this reasoning the High Court has held .
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 Justke nndcr
paragraph 14.
The Judges at Lucknow hear cases arising 1n such
areas in Oudh as the Chief Justice l:lirects. It is open to the Chid
Justice to reduce the areas from time to time.
Cases arising in the
areas so removed can no longer he heard at Lucknow.
They will be
heard at Allahabad or at any other place appointed under the main pro-
514
SUPREr.tE COURT REPORTS
(1976] 1 S.C.R.
vision of paragraph 14'.
A stage may be reached in the process of
reduction where only one area qf Oudh alone may remain with the
Judges sitting at Lucknow. There is also power in the Chief Ju~li<:<:,
by virtue of second proviso. to increase by order that classes of cases
orising in Oudh areas shall be heard at Allahabad. Finally, the arrange-
. ment th.:t 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 C.qurt 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 or.e 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 un\ler 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 conccrncct. 1h" Lucknow Bench will have juris-
<liction under Article 226 only in cases where the right of the petitim:er
arose first within the Oudh areas.
Where an original order pasocd
outside the Oudh areas has been reversed or modified or confirmed at a
place within the Ou\lh areas it is not the place where the ultimate or the
appellate order is passed that will attract jurisdiction of the Lucknow
Bench.
Jn most cases where an appeal or revision will lie to the Siate
Government, the order will be inade at Lucknow. In all such ca,cs,
if it be held that the place where a case can be said to arise is where tl:e
ultimate or appellate order is passed by the authority, the Judges at
Luekno\v would then have jurisdiction even though the controversy
originally arose and the original order was made by an authority outside
the specified Oulih areas.
In all cases a writ petition filed in the H!gh
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 Hi/ili Court. The right of the petitioner is tho right
wbich first arose and if the place where the ri11.ht 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 -
tk c_au5' of action wholly or in part arose •. In a criminal case the
Lucknow Bench would have jurb\liction where the offence has been
com:ni ttd.
The conclusion as well as the reasoning of the High Court that the
p;:rmanent 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
A
~-
•
B
~
·'.f;\
c
-..-
-
D
E
F
G
•
H
+
•
..
'y.
-):
'
•
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
NASIRUDDIN v. s.T.A.T. (Ray, C.J.)
515
such other places in the United Provinces as the Ghief Justice may, with
the approval of the Governor of the United ~rovinces, appoint.
The
word .. or'' cannot be read as "and". If the precise words used are
plain and unambiguous, they are bounli to Qe construed in their ordinary sense.
The mere fact that the results of a statute may be un.1ust
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 il}.c.onvenience is an absurd inconvenier..cc,
by reading an enactment in its C?rdinary 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 a(guments which were presented at the Bar on behalf of the
Beit 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
er Lucknow on the other.
The construction is to be dispassionate
without any leaning eitber in favour or against either of the pfaccs
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 ef
the Order. the word "and" instead of the word "or" would have b..:!en
used.
Other places may be detennined by the Chief Justice in consultation with the Governor. It is left to prud"11ce of the authorities mentioned as to what other places should be determineli.
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 &talus
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 real:!
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 couclusion of the High Court that the first proviso to paragraph
l .+ 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
Cnief J usticc from time to time of not less than two Judges sitting at
H · Lucknow.
An argument was advanced on behalf of the Bar Association at Allahabad that the worl:ls "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 hr
.516
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976] l S.C.R.
.number" indicate the minimum as two and that more than two Judge~
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 exigen-
.cies. The only limitation on the number is that it shall not b~ less than
two.
The High Court held that the Chief Justice might reduce the are:.is
jn Oudh because the words "as the Chief Justice may
direct" occur
immediatc!Y alter 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
Jo 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 itidicate that the power of the Chief Justice
to nominate Judges, who shall sit at Lucknow, is to be exercised from
time to time meaning there.by 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 tho
"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
tile
time _being vested in the new High Court".
The words "as the Chief
Justice may direct" mean that the Chief Justice exercises the power ta
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 14 in the Order as to what the areas in Oudh arc or
will be.
Historically, the territories with J 2 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
Govi;rnment of India order dated 4 February. 1856.
(See : Laws of nonRegulations Provinces 1863 by Lon.l G. Campell, Judicial Commissioner, Oudh).
In 1925 Oudh Courts Act was passed by the Uttar
Pradesh Lceislaturc. The Chief Court of Oudh with one Chief Justice
and four Puisne Judges was established replacing the Judicial
Commissioner's Court.
In 1937 bv 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 Ju'dpes as may
·be appointed under the Government of India Act, 1935.
Later, two
more additional Judges were nopo;nted.
Jn
th;s
background
the
A
~
~
B
~
;,,.
->-:
c
.,..
D
E
F
G
•
H
NASJRUDDIN v. s:r.A.T. (Ray, C.J.)
517
A
'
Order of 1948 came into existeJJ£e and the new High Conrt was established with its seats at Allahabad and Lucknow. It,
therefore"
follows that when the Order cam_e into existence, it was for the Chief
Justice to direct the areas in Oudh, which would be within the jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench.
•
B
"'
'r,
-'+
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 p~civ.ince by. either of the existing High Court.
Paragraph 14 of the Order deals with the seats of the High Court at
Allahabad and Lucknow.