HC dismisses PIL on jurisdiction of Benches
Tags:
The Madras high court on Wednesday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed by advocate B. Stalin of Madurai on the jurisdiction of its principal seat in Chennai and its bench in Madurai.
The full bench of Justices K.N. Basha, K. Chandru and M. Venugopal dismissed the PIL that sought a direction to the registry of the Madras high court not to entertain writ, writ appeals and habeas corpus petitions falling within the jurisdiction of the Madurai bench at the principal seat in Chennai.
The bench referred to a ruling of the Supreme Court in the Rajasthan High Court Advocates’ Association’s case, in which it was held that the advocate has no locus standi to file a writ petition of this nature and the cause of action will have to be decided on the facts of each individual case.
Further there was impermissibility for giving directions by the Chief Justice. Hence, the writ petition was liable to rejected on this short ground, the bench said.
Justice Chandru, who wrote the judgment for the bench said the affidavit filed in support of the writ was vague. The wild allegations made could never be entertained that too as a PIL.
The Chief Justice alone was the competent authority to decide the posting of the mater either before the principal bench or the Madurai bench.
The petitioner is an advocate and cannot be said to be a person aggrieved. Thus the petitioner cannot question such matters, the judge said.
“As the Chief Justice is the Master of Rolls and the jurisdiction of each high court is well defined by the presidential order and by a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court as well as this court defining the scope of the presidential order as well as the territorial jurisdiction of the high court under Article 226 and also the territorial divisions between the two high courts having benches in the same state at different places and also the question of cause of action both in civil and criminal cases have been well settled, a direction sought for by the petitioner cannot be countenanced by this court,” the bench said.
Post new comment