Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court heard three writ petitions filed by the Lawyers' Forum for General Utility & Litigating Public, Aurangabad, challenging the administrative transfer of certain cases from the Aurangabad Bench to the Principal Seat at Mumbai. The petitions raised important questions regarding the powers of the Chief Justice as Master of Roster to transfer matters on the administrative side. The primary challenge was to the proviso to Rule 2 of Chapter XXXI of the Bombay High Court (Appellate Side) Rules, 1960, which allows the Chief Justice, in his discretion, to order that any case or class of cases arising in specified judicial districts be heard at Bombay instead of the Aurangabad Bench. The petitioner also challenged general orders dated 24 February 1993 and 6 January 2010, issued under Rules 1, 2, and 3 of Chapter XXXI, which directed that certain categories of matters pending at the Nagpur, Aurangabad, and Panaji Benches be transferred to the Principal Seat. Specifically, the order dated 6 January 2010 mandated the transfer of all proceedings filed against the Chief Justice, the High Court, its officers, or District Judges by judicial officers and staff members. The petitions further assailed specific transfer orders: one dated 26 March 2012 transferring Writ Petition No. 9207 of 2011 (concerning the establishment of a National Law University at Aurangabad) from the Aurangabad Bench to Mumbai, and another dated 29 June 2012 transferring Contempt Petition No. 277 of 2012 arising out of the same writ petition. The background involved a decision by the Maharashtra Government to establish a National Law University at Aurangabad, which was allegedly not implemented, leading the petitioner to file the writ petition seeking enforcement. While the writ petition was pending, affidavits were filed by the State stating that the university would be set up at Aurangabad, but the petitioner alleged breach of assurances and filed a contempt petition. The Chief Justice ordered the transfer of these matters to the Principal Seat citing administrative reasons. The petitioner, appearing through its president, argued that the transfers were improper and the proviso to Rule 2 was unconstitutional. The State and the High Court administration defended the orders. The court, after hearing submissions, reserved judgment. The core legal issues involved the scope of the Chief Justice's administrative powers, the interpretation of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, and the validity of the impugned rules and orders. The judgment was pronounced on 11 December 2014, but the final decision and reasoning are not available in the provided text.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Chief Justice has administrative power to transfer cases pending before a Bench to the principal seat under the proviso to Rule 2 of Chapter XXXI of the Bombay High Court (Appellate Side) Rules, 1960, and whether such transfer violates constitutional provisions or principles of natural justice. The court also examined the validity of general orders dated 24 February 1993 and 6 January 2010, and specific transfer orders dated 26 March 2012 and 29 June 2012.
Law Points
- Powers of Chief Justice as Master of Roster
- validity of proviso to Rule 2 of Chapter XXXI of Bombay High Court (Appellate Side) Rules
- 1960
- constitutionality of administrative transfer orders
- interpretation of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (12) 46
Writ Petition No.10048 of 2012, Writ Petition No.1860 of 2014, Writ Petition No.8182 of 2012
A.S. Oka and G.S. Kulkarni
Shri Satish B. Talekar (President of Petitioner in person), Shri V.S. Gokhale (AGP for State), Shri E.P. Bharucha (Senior Advocate along with Shri Arzan Balsara and Shri Sanjay Udeshi for Respondent Nos.2 and 3)
Lawyers' Forum for General Utility & Litigating Public, Aurangabad, Through its President
The State of Maharashtra, The Hon'ble the Chief Justice, The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, Through its Registrar (and in WP 1860/2014: The State of Maharashtra, The High Court of Bombay, Through its Registrar General)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Public interest litigation filed by a lawyers' forum challenging the administrative transfer of cases from the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court to the principal seat at Mumbai, and the validity of the proviso to Rule 2 of Chapter XXXI of the Bombay High Court (Appellate Side) Rules, 1960.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought writs to quash the general orders dated 24 February 1993 and 6 January 2010, the specific transfer orders dated 26 March 2012 and 29 June 2012, and the proviso to Rule 2; and to retransfer the matters to the Aurangabad Bench.
Filing Reason
The petitioner contended that the Chief Justice's administrative orders transferring cases regarding infrastructure and a contempt petition from Aurangabad to Mumbai violated the rights of litigants and were beyond the powers conferred by the rules, and that the proviso allowing such transfer was unconstitutional.
Previous Decisions
General order dated 24 February 1993 directed that all proceedings pending at Nagpur, Aurangabad, and Panaji Benches against the Chief Justice, High Court, its officers, or District Judges by judicial officers and staff members be transferred to the Principal Seat. This was modified by order dated 6 January 2010, which directed transfer of similar proceedings filed by judicial officers and private parties. Specific orders dated 22 March 2012 transferred four cases including Writ Petition No.9207 of 2011 from Aurangabad to Mumbai, and order dated 29 June 2012 transferred Contempt Petition No.277 of 2012.
Issues
Whether the Chief Justice has administrative power to transfer cases from one bench to another under the proviso to Rule 2 of Chapter XXXI.
Whether the proviso to Rule 2 of Chapter XXXI of the Bombay High Court (Appellate Side) Rules, 1960 is valid.
Whether the general orders dated 24 February 1993 and 6 January 2010 are legal and within the powers conferred by the rules.
Whether the specific transfer orders dated 26 March 2012 and 29 June 2012 are valid.
Judgment Excerpts
An important issue is raised in these proceedings regarding the powers of the Chief Justice of this Court to transfer a matter pending before a Bench of this Court to its principal seat by exercising administrative powers vesting in him as the Master of Roster.
Provided that the Chief Justice may, in his discretion, order that any case or class of cases arising in any such District shall be heard at Bombay:
In exercise of the powers conferred by proviso to Rules 1, 2 and 3 of ChapterXXXI of the Bombay High Court, Appellate Side Rules, 1960 ( reprint 1981) and in partial modification of the previous order dated 24 th February 1993...
Procedural History
The Lawyers' Forum for General Utility & Litigating Public, Aurangabad, filed three writ petitions challenging various administrative transfer orders. Writ Petition No.10048/2012 challenged the order dated 29 June 2012 transferring Contempt Petition No.277/2012 from Aurangabad to Mumbai. Writ Petition No.1860/2014 challenged the validity of the proviso to Rule 2 of Chapter XXXI. Writ Petition No.8182/2012 challenged the general orders dated 24 February 1993 and 6 January 2010, and the specific order dated 26 March 2012 transferring Writ Petition No.9207/2011. The petitions were heard together by a Division Bench on 12 September 2014. The petitioner filed written submissions on 19 September 2014. Judgment was reserved and pronounced on 11 December 2014.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay High Court (Appellate Side) Rules, 1960: Chapter XXXI, Rules 1, 2, 3, Proviso to Rule 2
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
