V R MUDVEDKAR Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the four notifications, S.O.Nos. 2206 to 2209 dated 17-10-1970 issued by the Government of Mysore in exercise of the powers vested in it under the provisions of the Mysore Civil Courts Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) establishing a Court of Civil Judge at Haveri and another at Gadag, both in the District of Dharwar, and fixing the local limits of the jurisdiction of the said Courts. The petitioners are 24 in number, of whom petitioners Nos.1 to 22 and 24 are Advocates practising either at Dharwar or at Hubli and petitioner No.23 is a litigant, whose cases are pending in the Court of the Civil Judge, Dharwar. Respondent-1 is the State of Mysore; respondent-2 is the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court of Mysore ; and Respondents 3 to 36 were irnpleaded as respondents by an order made by the High Court on 22-12-1970 on I.A. Nos.1 and 2.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioners who are Advocates is that the impugned notifications are issued without complying with the provisions of the Act, and, therefore, the notifications are liable to be set aside. They also allege that the notifications have been issued on account of collateral considerations. They have stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition which has been sworn to by Sri S.C.Rachajyanavar, petitioner No.9 who is an Advocate and the President of the Bar Association of Dharwar, that they have a right to maintain this petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, since their rignt under the subsisting contracts under which they have been engaged by clients to argue their cases which are now pending in the Courts of the Civil Judge, Dharwar, and Hubli would be affected in the event of the Civil Judge's Courts being established at Haveri and Gadag. In respect of petitioner No.23 who is not an Advocate, it is stated that some proceedings in which he is interested are now pending in the Courts of the Civil Judges at Dharwar and Hubli and they are likely to be transferred to the new Courts in the event of the new Courts being established. It is alleged by the petitioners that in the event of the pending cases being transferred to the new Courts established under the notifications, the clients who have engaged Lawyers at Dharwar and Hubli would have to incur extra expenses to conduct their cases in the new Courts. The petitioners, therefore, claim that they are vitally interested in getting the impugned notifications set aside. On behalf of the State Government a counter-affidavit sworn to by an Under Secretary to the Government of Mysore in the Department of Law and Parliamentary Affairs has been filed stating that the petitioners have no locus standi to maintain this petition and to seek the reliefs claimed by them. It is also pleaded that the Government of Mysore has followed the necessary procedure such as consultation with the High Court prescribed under the provisions of the Act, and the notifications have been issued in due compliance with law. The allegation that the notifications have been issued either on collateral or extraneous considerations or that there has been any malafides on the part of the Government in issuing the same, is denied. The Registrar of the High Court has also filed a counter-affidavit.

(3.) At the hearing of the writ petition, the learned Advocate General appearing for respondent-1 raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the petitioners have no locus standi to file the petition for the reliefs prayed for by them. We, therefore, requested Counsel for both the parties to submit their arguments on the above question. Having heard both the parties, we reserved the case for judgment since we felt that the case could be disposed of on the preliminary point without going into the other questions raised in the case. We shall first take up the case of petitioners 1 to 22 and 24. We may mention here that Dharwar and Hubli although were originally two cities are now constituted into one single Municipal Corporation called Hubli-Dharwar Municipal Corporation. In respect of Dharwar District, there were two Civil Judge's Courts, one at Dharwar and the other at Hubli By Notification No SO.2206 dated 17-10-1970 the Government of Mysore proposed to establish with effect from 4-1-1971 a Court of Civil Judge for the area comprised within the Taluks of Haven, Hanagal, Ranebennur, Hirekerur and Byadgi of Dharwar District and fixed Haveri as the place at which the said Court should be held. The local limits of the jurisdiction of the said Court were fixed as the area covered by the local limits of the above said Taluks. By Notification NO.So.2207 dated 17-10-1970 the Government of Mysore proposed to establish with effect from 4-1-1971 a Court of the Civil Judge for the area comprised within the Taluks of Gadag, Mundargi, Ron and Laxmeshwar (Shirhatti) of Dharwar District and fixed Gadag as the place at which the said Court should be held. It also fixed the limits of the jurisidction of the said Court to ho the local limits of the above said Taluks. By Notification NO.So.2208 dated 17-10-1970, the Government of Mysore varied with effect from 4-1-1971 the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court of the Civil Judge, Hubli, to comprise the area within the limits of the Taluks of Hubli, Kundagol, Shiggaon and Savanur of Dharwar District, and by Notification No.SO.2209 dated 17- 10-1970, the Government of Mysore varied with effect from 4-1-1971 the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court of the Civil Judge, Dharwar, to comprise the area within the limits of the Taluks of Dharwar, Kalghatgi, Navalgund and Nargund of Dharwar District The result was that witheffect from 4-1-1971, there had to be four Courts of Civil Judges in Dharwar District, one each at Dharwar, Hubli, Haveri and and Gadag having jurisdiction over the respective Taluks mentioned above. It may be mentioned here that there is no provision in the impugned notifications which would result in the transfer of pending cases in the Courts of the Civil Judge at Dharwar and Hubli arising from out of the areas attached to the Court of the Civil Judge at Haveri or the area attached to the Court of the Civil Judge at Gadag under the impugned notifications. As already stated, the grievance of the members of the Bar, who are petitioners in this case, is that they would be prejudicially affected by the notifications for according to them on the establishment of the new Courts at Haveri and Gadag, then right to conduct the cases on behalf of their clients would get affected, in the event of the pending cases being transferred to the new Courts. It is also argued that the opportunity they had to appear and conduct cases arising from the areas now transferred to the jurisdiction of the new Courts would also be affected since they are all residing within Hubli-Dharwar Municipal Corporation area. Before dealing with the question relating to locus standi of the members of the Bar to maintain this petition, we would like to state that the Bar in India is no doubt an important limb of the administration of justice and dispensation of justice may well njgh be impossible without the active co-operation of the members of the Bar. Their views on matters pertaining to administration of justice as long as they are consistent with the law of the land on the one hand and efficiency, discipline and judicial properiety on the other, have to be taken into account by the concerned authorities while deciding such matters. Hence, even though we held that this petition is not maintainable for reasons to be recorded hereinfter, it should not be considered that we are belittling the legal profession in any manner whatsoever. The legal profession in our country is one dedicated to the service of the public and its members enjoy a privilege to apptar in all Courts in India on behalf of litigants and to present their cases in a manner consistent with the established traditions of the Bar. They also expect to be paid a reasonable remuneration for the services rendered by them But one thing is clear that pecuniary gain or advantage has never been allowed to assume primary importance in the discharge of their professional duties.