Bombay High Court Quashes High Court Administration's Refusal to Approve Establishment of Additional District Judge and Civil Judge Senior Division Courts at Partur Due to Exclusive State Government Power. Court Rules That Provisions of Maharashtra Civil Courts Act, 1869 Vest Power in State Government to Establish Such Courts Without Requiring Prior High Court Concurrence.

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the refusal of the High Court Administration to approve the establishment of Courts of Additional District Judge and Civil Judge Senior Division at Partur, and seeking direction to the State Government to independently decide the proposal.

Quashing of the High Court Administration's decision dated 13 August 2009 declining approval, and direction to the State of Maharashtra to decide the proposal without being influenced by the High Court's decision. Also challenge to administrative orders transferring certain writ petitions to the principal seat at Bombay.

The State Government declined to consider the request on 30 March 1998 citing lack of High Court approval; the High Court Administration refused to grant approval on 13 August 2009. The Petitioner Association filed a review application on 28 October 2009 and subsequently filed this writ petition in 2012.

State Government's refusal dated 30 March 1998; High Court Administration's communication dated 13 August 2009 declining approval; Petitioner's review application dated 28 October 2009; administrative orders of the High Court dated 24 February 1993 and 6 January 2010 challenged in the petition.

Whether the power to establish Courts of Additional District Judge and Civil Judge Senior Division at Partur, Taluka Partur, District Jalna vests exclusively in the State Government under the Maharashtra Civil Courts Act, 1869 and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or requires prior concurrence/approval of the High Court Administration. Whether the High Court Administration's decision dated 13 August 2009 refusing approval is justiciable and should be quashed. Whether the State Government can be directed to decide the proposal for establishment of courts independently, without being influenced by the High Court's refusal.

The Petitioner argued that Sections 3, 14, 15, 19, 21, and 23 of the Maharashtra Civil Courts Act, 1869 vest the power to create judicial districts, appoint Additional District Judges, and determine places for holding courts exclusively in the State Government, without requiring High Court concurrence. Reference was made to Articles 233 and 235 of the Constitution to contend that the power to establish courts is not with the High Court Administration. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the power to establish a Court of Sessions lies with the State Government alone. Pendency figures and accessibility considerations justified the establishment of courts at Partur; similar courts had been established in other taluka places despite lower pendency or population. The High Court Administration took inconsistent stands; at various places, courts were established even without adequate pendency. The High Court Administration contended that the State Government cannot establish new courts without its concurrence as only the High Court Administration can decide the viability of a new court. The Government Pleader submitted that the State Government exercises its power in consultation with the High Court and would abide by the High Court's opinion.

Ratio not explicitly mentioned

The issue involved in this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is as regards the establishment of the Courts of the District and Additional Sessions Judge as well as the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Partur, Taluka Partur, District Jalna. The issue which arises for consideration is for establishing the said Courts, which is the decision making authority, the State Government or the High Court Administration. the State Government under Section 3 of the Civil Courts Act has a power to create judicial District, to alter the limits of a judicial District and to create new Districts. third part of Section 19 specifically provides that every such Additional District Judge ... shall ordinarily hold his Court at such place within the local limits of his jurisdiction as may be determined by the State Government, and may, with the previous sanction of the High Court hold it at any other place within such limits. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the High Court Administration urged that the State Government cannot establish new Courts without concurrence of the High Court Administration as only High Court Administration can decide the issue of the viability of new Court.

The Petitioner Bar Association had been espousing the cause for establishing courts at Partur. On 30 March 1998, the State Government declined to consider the request citing lack of High Court approval. The High Court Administration, by communication dated 13 August 2009, declined to approve the proposal. The Petitioner made a review application on 28 October 2009. The Petitioner filed the present writ petition (No. 5098 of 2012) challenging the High Court Administration's decision and seeking directions. Various affidavits were filed by the parties. The matter was heard by a Division Bench, and judgment was reserved on 8 February 2016 and pronounced on 5 May 2016.

• Constitution of India: Article 226, Article 233, Article 235
• Maharashtra Civil Courts Act, 1869: Section 3, Section 14, Section 15, Section 19, Section 21, Section 23
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: