DEVENDRA BAHADUR SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE place on record our appreciation of the assistance rendered by Shri R. D. Jain as amicus curiae who is heard today and has cited authorities to enlighten us on the question mooted for our decision in the application aforesaid. Shri Sapre, who has pressed the application aforesaid for transmission of records of this case to the principal seat of this Court at Jabalpur for hearing and disposal, his placed implicit reliance on the Full Bench decision of this Court in K. P. Govit's : 1987 MPLJ 396 : 1987 JLJ 341 case. But, Shri Jain has rightly submitted that the view expressed therein does not support the contention canvassed. He has also cited two decisions of the Apex Court and those are M/s. Haji Esmail v. Competent Officer, Lucknow : AIR 1967 SC 1244 and Nasiruddin v. STAT : AIR 1976 SC 331 We see sufficient force in the view canvassed for our acceptance by Shri Jain that no distinction can be and has to be made between an order passed modifying in one case and confirming in other case, by the Appellate Authority (namely, Board of Revenue in the instant case) impugned decisions and all cases are to be treated alike. Shri Sapre has contended that in the instant case the Board of Revenue has confirmed the order passed by the subordinate authority, which was impugned before Board and as such relying on K. P. Govit's case (supra) he has submitted that this Bench has no jurisdiction to hear this matter and it has to be heard at the principal seat of this Court. At para 9 of the report in JLJ the Full Bench of this Court has held that if the cause of action arises wholly on in part at a place or places within the specified revenue districts, the Gwalior Bench will have jurisdiction to deal with the matter and for that view reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's decision in Nasiruddin's case (supra). We have examined also Apex Court's view expressed in the decision cited and our attention in that regard is drawn to paragraphs 13. 39 and 40 of the report. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court found the view expressed by the High Court incorrect and held that not only cases instituted, but all types of cases finally decided, at Lucknow Bench, of the High Court, would come in the purview of the expression "in respect of cases arising in such areas" used in the relevant High Court (Amalgamation) Order, 1948, which is pari materia with the Presidential Order, on which decision hinged in K. P. Govit's case (supra). We have also looked at Haji Esmail's case (supra) to read the illuminating observation of their Lordships therein on the doctrine of 'merger' at para 12 of the report. It has been observed that if the Appellate Authority has disposed of the appeal, "the operative order was of the final authority whether it has reversed, modified or confirmed the original order".

(2.) FOR the reasons aforesaid we are of the view that Shri Sapre's contention has no merit and it is rejected. The application also accordingly fails and is rejected. However, we make it clear that Petitioner's right is hereby not foreclosed to allow him to approach the Hon'ble Chief Justice to have the petition transferred and heard at Jabalpur. if so advised. Because, the Hon'ble Chief Justice has the necessary competence in that regard under the relevant Rules of the Court. C.C. today on payment of usual charges.