INDO MERCANTILE BANK LTD Vs. COMMISSIONER QUILON MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals are directed against the orders passed by a Single Judge of this Court in three original petitions filed under Art.226 of the Constitution, praying for the issue of appropriate writs or directions. When the appeals came on for hearing before a Division Bench of two Judges, an objection was raised as to the competency of the Division Bench to hear the appeals. It was also contended that the State Legislature cannot confer such an appellate jurisdiction on Division Benches. In view of these legal objections raised on behalf of the respondents, the three appeals were referred to a Full Bench mainly for the purpose of answering those legal points The referring order was passed in A. S.60/1959 and it is in the following terms:

(2.) We shall at the outset dispose of the larger question raised on behalf of the respondents that the State Legislature cannot enact a law conferring the power on Division Benches to hear appeals against orders passed by a Single Judge in original petitions filed under Art.226 of the Constitution. The power conferred on the High Court under Art.226 is very wide. The Article states that:

(3.) The next question for consideration is whether the statutory rules which were in force at the time of filing of the three appeals now under consideration, have provided for such appeals. The Travancore-Cochin High Court Act (Act V of 1125) as amended by Act I of 1952, was in force at the time when these appeals were filed. Act V of 1125 had expressly provided for the hearing of original applications for the issue of writs and orders similar to those provided under Art.226 of the Constitution. The provision to that effect was contained in sub-s.(2) of S.18 of that Act. Sub-s.(3) stated that an appeal shall lie from every order passed under sub-s.(2). Sub-s.(4) stated that the High Court shall frame rules to regulate the procedure in respect of applications and appeals under sub-s.(2) and (3). By the Amending Act I of 1952 sub-s.(2), (3) and (4) of S.18 of Act V of 1125 were deleted. It is because of such deletion of sub clauses (2), (3) and (4) of S.18 of Act V of 1125 that an argument is advanced on behalf of the respondents that after the passing of the amended Act, the right of appeal against orders of a Single Judge had ceased to exist. Even though sub-s.(2), (3) and (4) of S.18 of Act V of 1125 have been deleted, there are other provisions in the amended Act to indicate clearly that the right of appeal against the orders of a Single Judge has been retained. Sub-s.(2) of S.18 of Act V of 1125 was found unnecessary in view of the existence of Art.226 in the Constitution. However, item 10 in sub clause (1) (A) of S.20 of Act V of 1125 was amended by clause (3) of S.15 of Act I of 1952 by substituting a new provision. By the amendment thus made, provision was made for the exercise by a Single Judge of the High Court, of the powers conferred by clause (1) of Art.226 of the Constitution. Similarly, clause (1) of S.21 was amended by clause (1) of S.16 of the amending Act, I of 1952, by inserting a new provision which runs as follows:-