- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors.
Factual and Procedural Background
This intra-Court appeal was preferred by the Rajasthan High Court against directions issued by a single Bench of the Court in an order dated 29-9-2009 in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1265/2009 (State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Rekha Mahawar). The impugned order directed the Registrar of the High Court to scrutinize all cases filed at the Principal Seat of the High Court at Jodhpur and the Bench at Jaipur over the past five years, to determine the cause of action and territorial jurisdiction, mark such cases as defect cases if filed at an improper venue, and transfer them accordingly. The High Court was aggrieved by these directions and was granted leave to appeal, with the directions stayed pending final hearing. The appeal raised questions about the propriety of judicial orders directing procedural regulations that the High Court contended should be governed by established rules and administrative processes.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a single Bench of the High Court can issue directions regulating procedural matters of filing and scrutiny of cases that effectively legislate through judicial orders, contrary to the existing statutory rules framed under Article 225 of the Constitution of India.
- Whether the directions issued by the single Bench to scrutinize and transfer cases based on territorial jurisdiction after regular registration of cases are permissible or infringe upon judicial and administrative boundaries.
- Whether the impugned order, passed in the appellate jurisdiction under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, could validly issue writ directions concerning High Court procedural rules without the High Court being a party to the proceedings.
Arguments of the Parties
Rajasthan High Court's Arguments
- The directions issued by the single Bench amount to judicial legislation, which is impermissible as the procedural rules for the High Court are already prescribed by the "Rules of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, 1952" framed under Article 225 of the Constitution and Section 46 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949.
- The High Court's administrative control and procedural regulation vest exclusively in the Chief Justice, who can issue appropriate administrative directions but not judicial orders that alter procedural rules.
- Procedural improvements or difficulties should be addressed administratively rather than through judicial pronouncements to avoid inconsistent procedures across different benches.
- The impugned order was passed under appellate jurisdiction (Motor Vehicles Act) and could not validly issue writ directions under Article 226 of the Constitution, especially when the High Court was not a party to the matter.
Rajasthan High Court Advocates' Association's Arguments
- The Association submitted applications to be impleaded and argued that the directions issued by the single Bench amounted to impermissible legislating through judicial orders.
Additional Counsel Arguments
- Learned counsel admitted that judicial legislation is impermissible but acknowledged grievances regarding the filing of matters at the Jaipur Bench.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Rajasthan High Court Advocates' Association (AIR 2001 SC 416) | Territorial jurisdiction and cause of action must be decided by the Court, not by the Registry; principles under Article 226 apply to bifurcated High Court seats. | Confirmed that cause of action determination is judicial, not administrative, invalidating Registry's unilateral jurisdictional scrutiny after registration. |
| Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club v. Chander Hass (2008) 1 SCC 683 | Judges can enforce existing law but cannot create new law through judicial decisions; judicial legislation is impermissible. | Supported the conclusion that procedural directions issued by single Bench amounted to judicial legislation beyond jurisdiction. |
| P. Ramachandra Rao v. Union of India (2002) 4 SCC 578 | When judges lay down new principles of law reserved for the legislature, they legislate and not merely declare law. | Reinforced the impermissibility of judicial orders that effectively legislate procedural rules. |
| State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand & Ors (1998) 1 SCC 1 | Administrative control of the High Court vests in the Chief Justice, who may issue administrative directions but not judicial legislation. | Supported the view that procedural regulation should be administrative and not judicial; Chief Justice's administrative powers are exclusive. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court examined the impugned directions in light of the statutory framework, including the Rules of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, 1952, and constitutional provisions under Article 225 and Article 226. It noted that the Rules of 1952, particularly Rule 308, already provide for the office to report on territorial jurisdiction issues when petitions or appeals are presented. The Court held that the Registry has no authority to assign defect numbers or scrutinize jurisdiction post-registration, as jurisdictional questions are judicial and must be decided by the Court, not the Registry.
The Court further observed that the procedural directions issued by the single Bench—such as requirements for signatures, pagination, certificates from counsel, and restrictions on parties—exceed the Bench's jurisdiction and amount to judicial legislation, which is impermissible. The Court emphasized that procedural rules must be framed or amended by the High Court through its rule-making powers, not by judicial orders.
Additionally, the Court underscored the principle of natural justice requiring an opportunity of hearing before any adverse order is passed. The impugned order was passed without the High Court being a party or given an opportunity to be heard, rendering it void and unenforceable. The Court concluded that the directions conflicted with statutory provisions and established case law, and thus were liable to be quashed.
Holding and Implications
The Court allowed the appeal and quashed and set aside the directions issued in paragraph 26 of the order dated 29-9-2009. It held that the Registry should follow the procedural rules as prescribed in the Rules of 1952, including Rule 308, and is not bound to comply with the impugned judicial directions or similar orders passed in various writ petitions.
The Court clarified that while the quashed directions are not binding, they may be treated as suggestions for administrative consideration by the High Court if deemed appropriate.
The direct effect is that procedural regulation for filing and scrutiny of cases must be governed by the statutory rules and administrative mechanisms, preserving the separation between judicial pronouncements and legislative functions within the High Court's framework. No new precedent beyond the application of existing constitutional and statutory principles was established.
Prakash Tatia, J.:-
This intra-Court appeal has been preferred by the Rajasthan High Court being aggrieved against certain directions issued by the single Bench of this Court in order dated 29-9-2009 in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1265/2009, State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Rekha Mahawar whereby the single Bench of this Court directed the Registrar of the High Court to scru tinize all the cases filed at Principal Seat of High Court at Jodhpur as well as the cases filed at the Bench of High Court at Jaipur and that too of past 5 years and find out the cause of action as explained in para No. 24 of the impugned judgment and then put a note about the territorial jurisdiction and put those cases in defect side with registration number of the cases, obviously as defect case and then such cases shall be transferred to the appropriate seat, or bench. The directions as given in para No. 26 are as follows: -
"26. Since as aforesaid, this question keeps on cropping up at both the places oft and on and more often than not at Jaipur Bench caus ing undesirable imbalance, it is directed that the Registry shall scrutinize all the cases filed at both the places in past 5 years and if the cause of action as explained above in para 24 falls within the domain of the principal seat or bench other than the place where such cases are filed, a defect note pointing out this question as to territorial jurisdiction, as is made by the Registry in the present case, would be made and the defect side registra tion number of the case would also be given and such cases shall be transferred to the appropriate seat or bench, as the case may be, unless such defect or objection of Regis try is determined otherwise by the concerned Bench for maintainability of the case at that place only before matter is proceeded further on merits. Such scrutiny of the cases should be completed within 6 months from today and report by the Registrar General of the Court may be placed before the Court in this file showing the number of cases so scrutinized and transferred or upon orders by the Bench, maintained at that seat or bench, as the case may be. A copy of this order may be circulated by Dy. Registrar (Judl.) and Registrar General in Stamp Reporter section and all other sections in the Registry at Prin cipal seat and Bench at Jaipur immediately by way of circular particularly containing examples enumerated in para 24 of the judg ment above."
2. The leave was granted to the High Court to prefer appeal against the said impugned judgment vide order dated 18-1 -2010 and the directions issued in para No. 26 of the judg ment dated 29-9-2009 were stayed vide or der dated 19-3-2010. The matter was listed for final hearing as per the order dated 29-4-2010. AJI application was submitted by the Rajasthan High Court Advocates' Associa tion, Jodhpur for being impleaded as party and it also submitted an application with cop ies of some orders (Ex.A/1 to A/3) and it has been prayed that directions given in above orders also deserve to be quashed. On 4-1-2011, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court observed that since the matter pertains to the functioning of the High Court in relation to certain matters, the issue may be examined, keeping in view the provisions of Sections 122 and 123 of CPC read with Article 225 of the Constitution of India and the High Court Rules and orders already framed and which are in force and the decision of Supreme Court reported in AIR 2001 SC 416: 2001 AIR SCW 1.
3. Today an application has been submit ted on behalf of the Rajasthan High Court Advocates' Association for taking on record certain other orders, which have been passed by the single Bench of this Court in various matters to point out that several directions have been issued by the single Bench of this Court to the Registry of the High Court which virtually amounts to legislating through ju dicial process by passing the orders in judi cial side, which is impermissible in law.
4. We perused the following orders passed by the single Bench giving directions to the Registry, obviously, to the High Court also in relation to the procedure of filing of the matters in the High Court and how they should be dealt with and certain directions to the bar.
5. We perused the orders passed in un der-mentioned matters.
1. SBCWP No. 2284/2008 - Order dated 2-7-2008 Pramod Kumar Chhaparwal v. Kanhaiya Lal
2. SBCWP No. 5639/2010 - Order dated 7-7-2010 Smt. Rupesh Kumari & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
3. SBCWP No. 2930/2009 - Order dated 24-4-2010 Vinod Kumar Pandey v. State of Rajasthan
4. SBCWP No. 1040/2000 - Orderdated 19-2-2010 Amrit Lal & Ors. v. Board of Revenue & Ors.
5. SBCWP No. 8741/2009 a- Orderdated 11-9-2010 Brij Kishore Gopa v. Ashok Kumar & Ors.
6. SBCWP No. 1418/2008 - Orderdated:18-7-2010 Surendar Singh v. The Addl. District Judge No. 2, Bhilwara & Anr.
7. SBCWP No. 7958/2010 - Order dated 25-8-2010 Kushwant Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
8. SBCWP No. 9289/2009 - Orderdated 25-8-2010 Swaroop Ram & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
9. SBCWP No. 4674/2010 - Orderdated20.-8-2010 Rosamma Mathew v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
6. It has been urged by learned counsel Sh. V. K. Mathur appearing for the Rajasthan High Court that by above orders directions have been issued to the Registry to follow the procedure as provided in the directions issued by the court referred above, which in cludes the directions, even not to accept the pleading and reply etc. in certain circum stances like, if petition is not bearirig com plete signatures, names and statute and the Court by order prescribed the manner of pagi nation and for obtaining certificate from the counsel about title and proper pagination and the Court also ordered how should be the internal and external paging and whether email IDs of the learned advocates have been given. Direction also has been issued not to implead the Court concerned as party in the matters (writs) filed in the High Court and further direction was issued that if the subordinate Courts are impleaded as party then they should be put in defect side. According to learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the Advocates' Association, single bench of this Court could not have is sued such direction when the complete pro cedure has been prescribed by rules framed by the High Court which are "Rules of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, 1952" (hereinafter referred to as the rules of 1952 for short). these rules of 1952 have been framed by the Rajasthan High Court in exercise of powers conferred by Section 46 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 as well as under article 225 of the constitu tion of india. It is submitted that once the procedure has been prescribed by statutory provisions of law that too in exercise of pow ers under Article 225 of the Constitution of India, the directions issued in above orders amount to legislation by judicial order, which is not permissible in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the num ber of cases. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the High Court that the Hon'ble Chief Justice is administrative head of the High Court and administrative control of the High Court vest in the Chief Justice alone as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand & Ors. reported in (1998) 1 SCC 1: AIR 1998 SC 1344 and in exercise of powers vested in Hon'ble the Chief Justice, the Hon'ble Chief Justice can issue appropriate directions to the Registry which is in direct control of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court then in case if there is any difficulty in following the procedure or some improvement is re quired in the procedure like in the matter of procedure for filing and listing of the cases before the appropriate bench then those suggestions can be given to the High Court as well as to the Hon'ble Chief Justice through proper channel and that can be done in ad ministrative side by Hon'ble Judges of the High Court instead of passing any judicial orders to regulate the procedure of High Court otherwise it may result into chaotic situation as several Judges may prescribe dif ferent procedure for the High Court. It is also submitted that impugned order was passed in Civil Misc. Appeal arising out of the mat ter relating to the accident claim case and the jurisdiction of the bench was limited to hear the appeal and while exercising the ap pellate jurisdiction under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the bench could not have issued writ directions which can be issued only by exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted that in the matter wherein impugned order has been passed, the High Court was not party.
7. Learned counsel Sh. M.C. Bhoot also submitted that judicial legislation is imper missible, however, some rules are required to be framed or required to be amended and that can be done by the High Court and not by the judicial order.
8. Learned counsel Sh. Anand Purohit, Addl. Advocate General and Sh. M.P. Singhvi also advanced their arguments, but so far as the legislation through judicial pro nouncement is concerned, the learned coun sels frankly admitted that it is not permis sible though they also submitted that they have some grievances because of the enter tainment of the certain matters at Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur.
9. We considered the above referred or ders passed by the Bench of this Court as well as the impugned judgment. It cannot be disputed that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajasthan High Court Advocates' Association (supra) issue of cause of action can be decided by the Court and not by the office. This issue has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan High Court Advocate's As sociation (supra) wherein it has been held as under:-
"The purpose of the Presidential Order is to carve out and define territorial jurisdiction between the principal seat at Jodhpur and the permanent bench seat at Jaipur. The cases are to be heard accordingly unless the Chief Justice may exercise in his discretion the power vested in him by the proviso to para 2 of the Presidential order, Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution provide how territorial jurisdiction shall be exercised by any High Court. Although the said clauses do not deal with principal seat or permanent bench of any High Court but in our opinion, there is no reason why the principle under lying thereunder cannot be applied to the functioning of the bifurcated territorial ju risdiction between the principal seat and permanent bench seat of any High Court. In case of a dispute arising whether an individual case or cases should be filed and heard at Jodhpur or Jaipur, the same has to be found out by applying the test-from which district the case arises, that is. in which district the cause of action can be said to have arisen and then exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution."
10. Chapter VIII of the Rules of 1952 provides the procedure to be followed by the office of High Court upon presenting peti tions, appeals or revision applications other than for original trial. In Chapter VIII under Rule 308, it is provided that what reports shall be made, obviously, by the Registry of the High Court on petition or appeal or applica tion for revision when presented in High Court. As per Rule 308 office is required to make report on various matters including on the question whether appeal or application for revision lies to this Court. Since the bench of the High Court was constituted subsequent to the framing of the Rules of 1952 and the jurisdiction has been distributed amongst the Principal Seat and the Bench of the Rajasthan High Court by Presidential notification, therefore, office can make report in any appeal or petition or application whether it lies to "this Court" and "this Court" means the Principal Seat of the High Court or the Bench at Jaipur as well as will be harmonious read ing of the Rule 308 in the light of the Presidential order dated 31-1-1997 passed in ex ercise of power conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 51 of the State Reorganization Act, 1956 creating the bench, that office will make report about territorial jurisdiction whether the appeal or petition is maintainable at place where it has been filed. Once there is a statu tory provision then it was not necessary for the Court to issue directions in judicial side to follow the procedure, which may be dif ferent than the procedure already provided by Rule and if there is any ambiguity, which apparently not, then at the most it could have been clarified.
11. There is no provision in the Rules of 1952 which empowers the Registry of the High Court to give defect number once regu lar number has been given to any matter and it has been registered as such. Therefore, the direction to Registry of the High Court to scrutinize all the cases filed at Principal Seat of the High Court and of the Bench in past 5 years to find out whether the matter has been filed at proper place or not and put a note of defect on each of the matter which has al ready been registered as a regularly presented petition or appeal, would be asking the Reg istry to look into the question of jurisdiction, which after entertainment of the petition or appeal can be decided by the Court only in view of the above referred judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Rajasthan High Court Advocates' Asso ciation (supra).
12. So far as other directions given in dif ferent orders, referred above, about the com plete signatures, about the pagination, sub mitting of certificate from the counsel about the title and pagination, about e-mail IDs and who should not be party are concerned, cer tainly these directions are not in accordance with the Rules of 1952 or any other order passed by Hon'ble Chief Justice and are in excess to jurisdiction of Single Bench as it amounts legislating by judicial order in view of the ratio of decisions given in the cases of Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club v. ChanderHass, (2008) 1 SCC 683 : AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 360, P. Ramachandra Rao v. UOI (2002) 4 SCC 578 : AIR 2002 SC 1856 and State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chandra & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 1344 (supra). In P. Ramachandra Rao's case it has been held that when Judges by judicial decisions lay down the new principles of law of the nature spe cifically reserved for the legislature, they legislate, and not merely declare the law. In the case of Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court held that Judges can enforce an existing law but cannot create law and enforce the same. As we have already noticed that what should be the procedure in High Court is required to be regulated by the rule of law by framing the law/rules and for which power has been given to the High Court under Article 225 of the Constitution of India and before that by Section 46 of the Rajasthan High Court Or dinance, 1949 (now repealed). As we have already noticed that in Prakash Chandra's case it has been held that the Hon'ble Chief Justice can issue appropriate directions to the Registry which is in direct control of Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the High Court. At this juncture, it will be relevant to mention here that the proprietary demands that whenever difficulty comes before any Court/bench in relation to the procedure or practice followed in the High Court then always it is better to give suggestion in administrative side to Hon'ble the Chief Justice orally or in writ ing instead of passing any order or giving directions in judicial order so that the Court may function as per rules and directions. This further necessary to ensure uniform proce dure for entire High Court and to avoid pre scribing procedure as per the view of bench and not as decided by the High Court.
13. Golden rule of law is principles of natural justice which requires opportunity of hearing to a person, institution or body be fore passing any order against such person, institution or body. In absence of such op portunity, the order may be void and also unenforceable. We found that the impugned order was passed in civil misc. appeal and that was not passed within the bench's juris diction and such an order could have been in writ jurisdiction where High Court should have been party and in other matters High Court was neither party nor any opportunity of hearing was given to the High Court, who alone could have brought to the notice of the Court that the High Court is bound by its own rules and till the rules are there, directions contrary to the rules, would be per incuriam being contrary to the statutory provisions.
14. In view of the above reasons, the ap peal is allowed. The directions issued in the impugned order dated 29th Sept., 2009 in para No. 26 are quashed and set aside. The office will be free to make report in accor dance with the Rules of 1952 including as per Rule 308 of the Rules of 1952 and need not to insist for compliance of the directions given in Order dated 2-7-2008 passed in SBCWP No. 2284/2008, Pramod Kumar Chhaparwal v. Kanhaiya Lal, order dated 7-7-2010 passed in SBCWP No. 5639/2010, Smt. Rupesh Kumari & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., order dated 24-4-2008 passed in SBCWP No. 2930/2009, Vinod Kumar Pandey v. State of Rajasthan order dated 19-2-2008 passed in SBCWP No. 1040/2000, Amrit Lal & Ors. v. Board of Revenue & Ors., order dated 11-9-2009 passed in SBCWP No. 8741/2009, Brij Kishore Gopa v. Ashok Kumar & Ors., or der dated 18-7-2008 passed in SBCWP No. 1418/2009, Surendar Singh v. The Addl. Dis trict Judge No. 2, Bhilwara & Anr., order dated 25-8-2010 passed in SBCWP No. 7958/2010, Kushwant Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., order dated 26-8-2010 passed in SBCWP No. 9289/2009, Swaroopa Ram & Ors. v. State of Raj. & Ors. and order dated 20-8-2010 passed in SBCWP No.4674/2010, Rosamma Mathew v. State of Raj. & Ors.
15. Though we have held those directions to be contrary to statutory provisions and per incuriam and quashed and set aside the same, but they may be treated to be suggestions, which may be considered by the High Court if High Court deems it proper and necessary.
Appeal allowed.
Alert