JAMSHED N GUZDAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Constitutional validity of the Bombay City Civil Court and bombay Court of Small Causes (Enhancement of Pecuniary Jurisdiction and Amendment) Act, 1986 (Maharashtra Act No. XV of 1987) (for short 'the 1987 Act') , which received assent of the President on 4.5.1987, Maharashtra high Court (Hearing of Writ Petitions by Division bench and Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) Act, 1986 (Maharashtra Act XVII of 1986) for short 'the 1986 Act') , which received the assent of the President on 28.2.1986, and the correctness of the Full Bench decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh striking down the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh uchcha Nyayalaya (Letters Patent Appeals samapti) Adhiniyam, 1981 (for short 'the adhiniyam') abolishing Letters Patent appeals as invalid are under challenge in these matters. Civil Appeal No. 2452/1992

(2.) This appeal is directed against the order of the Division Bench of the High Court of maharashtra made in Writ Petition No. 738 of 1992. The appellant herein filed writ petition by way of public interest litigation questioning the constitutional validity of the 1987 Act. In addition to challenging the constitutional validity of the aforementioned Act, he also sought for declaration that the Notification dated 20th august, 1991 issued by the State of maharashtra as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19 (l) (g) of the Constitution of India. The High Court, after dealing with the rival contentions, dismissed the writ petition by the impugned judgment upholding the validity of the 1987 Act and deferring the implementation of the Notification dated 20. 8.1991 till 2.10. 1992. After the impugned judgment was delivered, the appellant orally sought for leave to appeal to Supreme Court under Article 132 (1) read with Article 134-A of the Constitution of India. This appeal is by certificate granted by the High Court under article 132 (1) read with Article 134 of the constitution of India.

(3.) Although the 1987 Act received the presidential assent on 4.5.1987, it was not implemented for over four years between 4.5.1987 to 20. 8.1991 for want of infrastructure and other requirements at the Bombay city Civil Court. The High Court of Bombay had indicated to the Government that before the said Act could be brought into force, the city Civil Court should be adequately equipped to handle the transfer of jurisdiction. The High court in 1988 had categorically stipulated that minimum 110 judges would be necessary as a pre-condition for the transfer of jurisdiction to the City Civil Court for the implementation of the said Act. The High Court had indicated the requirements such as requisite number of court halls, judges, chambers, residences, books and staff etc. It appears there were several representations both for and against the implementation of the Act. On 20. 8.1991, State of maharashtra issued the notification to bring the 1987 Act into force with effect from 1.5.1992. Contending that there was no necessary infrastructure and other requirements were not satisfied to take care of the transfer of jurisdiction to deal with the cases and that there was no legislative competence for passing such Act by the legislature of State of Maharashtra, Writ petition No. 738 of 1992 was filed, as already indicated above, challenging the constitutional validity of the 1987 Act as well as the aforementioned notification of 20. 8.1991 bringing the 1987 Act into force with effect from 1.5.1992. On 15.4.1992, rule was issued and permission was given for intervention among others to the Bombay Bar Association, Bombay incorporated Law Society, the Indian Merchants' chamber and the Bombay City Civil and Sessions Court Bar Association. After hearing the arguments at considerable length and dealing with the rival contentions, the Division bench of the High Court passed the impugned judgment on 29.4.1992 in terms already mentioned in the beginning of this judgment. Civil Appeal Nos. 2592 of 1992 and 2530 of 1992