Case Note & Summary
The North Goa District Advocates Association and other petitioners filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 24 July 2015 issued by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, North Goa, Panaji, declaring that four Civil and Criminal Courts would shift from the existing Civil and Criminal Courts building to a new building called 'Spaces' at Patto Plaza, Panaji, effective 10 August 2015. The petitioners argued that the existing building was in sound condition and that a new district court complex at Merces had been allotted but not constructed. They contended that the shifting was arbitrary and that they were not consulted. The High Court of Bombay, comprising Justices A.S. Oka and A.R. Joshi, dismissed the petition. The court held that the decision to shift courts was an administrative function of the High Court under Article 235 of the Constitution of India, and that such decisions are not subject to judicial review unless arbitrary or mala fide. The court noted that the High Court had considered the need for additional space and that the new building was suitable. The court also rejected the argument that the Bar had a right to be heard before such a decision, stating that administrative decisions regarding court premises do not require prior consultation with advocates. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Administrative Power of High Court - Article 235 of Constitution of India - The High Court has exclusive administrative control over subordinate courts, and decisions regarding shifting of courts are administrative in nature, not subject to judicial review unless arbitrary or mala fide. The court held that the decision to shift courts was taken after due consideration of infrastructure needs and was not arbitrary. (Paras 1-10)
B) Administrative Law - Right to be Heard - Natural Justice - Advocates and Bar Associations do not have a right to be heard before an administrative decision regarding shifting of court premises, as such decisions are part of the High Court's administrative function and do not affect the rights of advocates to practice. The court held that no prior consultation with the Bar is required. (Paras 11-15)
C) Judicial Review - Scope of Interference - Administrative Decisions - Courts will not interfere with administrative decisions of the High Court unless they are shown to be arbitrary, irrational, or mala fide. The court found that the decision to shift courts was based on legitimate considerations of space and convenience, and thus not open to challenge. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the decision of the High Court Administration to shift four Civil and Criminal Courts from the existing Civil and Criminal Courts building at Panaji to a new building called 'Spaces' is valid and not arbitrary, and whether the Bar Associations have a right to be heard before such an administrative decision.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Administrative power of High Court under Article 235 of Constitution of India
- Judicial review of administrative decisions
- Doctrine of necessity
- Right of advocates to be heard before administrative decision
- Locus standi of Bar Associations
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (09) 44
Writ Petition No.8306 of 2015
Mr. Aspi Chinoy, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gaurish Agni, Mr. Omkar Warange, Mr. David Rao and Mr. Abid Ali i/by Mr. Ameya Sudhir Tamhane, for the Petitioners. Mr. D.J. Kambata, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. M.S. Karnik, for the Respondent Nos.1 and 3. Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, Senior Advocate (the Advocate General of the State of Goa) a/w Mr. Manish Salkar, AGP for Respondent No.2. Mr. Ashwin D. Bhobe, for Respondent No.4.
North Goa District Advocates Association and Ors.
The High Court of Bombay and Goa and Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging administrative decision of High Court to shift four Civil and Criminal Courts from existing building to new premises.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of notice dated 24 July 2015 and direction to restrain shifting of courts.
Filing Reason
Petitioners contended that the decision to shift courts was arbitrary and without consultation with the Bar.
Previous Decisions
A writ petition under Article 32 was filed before the Supreme Court, which was permitted to be withdrawn on 10 August 2015 with liberty to file under Article 226 before the Bombay High Court.
Issues
Whether the decision of the High Court Administration to shift four Civil and Criminal Courts to a new building is arbitrary and liable to be set aside?
Whether the Bar Associations have a right to be heard before such an administrative decision?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the existing building is sound, a new complex at Merces was allotted but not constructed, and the shifting was arbitrary without consultation.
Respondents (High Court) argued that the decision was administrative, taken after due consideration of space constraints and suitability of new building, and not subject to judicial review.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court has exclusive administrative control over subordinate courts under Article 235 of the Constitution of India. Decisions regarding shifting of court premises are administrative in nature and not subject to judicial review unless shown to be arbitrary, irrational, or mala fide. The Bar does not have a right to be heard before such decisions.
Judgment Excerpts
The High Court Administration decided to shift all the four Civil and Criminal Courts from the Civil and Criminal Courts building at Panaji to the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th floors of the building known as 'Spaces' at Patto Plaza, Panaji.
The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner pointed out that the existing Civil and Criminal Courts building at Panaji which houses the District Court of North Goa is in a sound condition.
We must note here that a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India was filed by the Petitioners before the Apex Court for the same relief.
Procedural History
The petitioners initially filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, by order dated 10 August 2015, permitted withdrawal of the petition with liberty to file a petition under Article 226 before the Bombay High Court. The present writ petition was then filed before the Bombay High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 32, Article 226, Article 235
