Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Bombay High Court

Satish Mahadeorao Uke vs The Registrar, High Court Of Bombay, ... on 29 March, 2016

Author: R.K. Deshpande

Bench: R.K. Deshpande

     cra22.16.J.odt                                                                                                                 1/4



                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                                                                
                               NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR




                                                                                 
                          CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.22 OF 2016


                Satish Mahadeorao Uke,
                Aged - 37 years, 




                                                                                
                Occupation Advocate,
                R/o Parvati Nagar,
                Nagpur - 440027.                                       ....... PETITIONER




                                                             
                                                 ...V E R S U S...

              The Registrar,
              High Court of Bombay,
                                   
              Bench at Nagpur, Nagpur.                   ....... RESPONDENT
                                  
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Shri S.M. Uke, Advocate [Applicant in person].
              Shri A.M. Kukday, Advocate for Respondent.
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      


                           CORAM:  R.K. DESHPANDE, J. 
   



                                          th    MARCH, 2016.
                           DATE:      29

     ORAL JUDGMENT
     1]                    Admit.





     2]                    Heard finally by consent of the petitioner and the learned

     counsel for the respondent.



     3]                    Shri Satish Uke, the petitioner appearing in person claims to

have filed Criminal Application (APPP) No.40 of 2016 for grant of leave to file an appeal before the Apex Court.

::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 10:54:28 ::: cra22.16.J.odt 2/4

4] The application was forwarded to the principal seat at Mumbai for constitution of Bench to hear this application. Accordingly, it is reported that the communication was received by the respondent -

Registrar (Judicial-I), High Court Appellate Side, Bombay, constituting the Bench for hearing of the matter.

5] The applicant filed an application dated 03.03.2016 for grant of certified copy of the communication received by the Registrar, High Court of Bombay, Bench at Nagpur, constituting the Bench to hear the Criminal Application No.40 of 2016. The application has been rejected by an order dated 04.03.2016, which is reproduced below:

"The letter of which certified copy is sought, can not be given as it is not a part and parcel of the matter, but it is a official communication."

6] Shri Uke, the petitioner appearing in person has invited my attention to Rule 5 in Chapter VIII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, which is reproduced below:

5. Applications for supply of documents for copies. --

(i) On a application bearing court-fee stamps of 20 paise in that behalf the original papers in the record of any civil or criminal proceedings may be supplied to the Government Pleader or the parties or their agents for the purposes of taking copies, provided that the papers are kept under the control and supervision of an Officer of ::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 10:54:28 ::: cra22.16.J.odt 3/4 the Court.

(ii) Documents shall be made available for taking copies during the hours prescribed above for taking search.

7] It is urged that under clause (i) of Rule 5 reproduced above, he is entitled to receive the copy of the communication, which is a part and parcel of Criminal Application No.40 of 2016. Shri Kukday, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has however, disputed this position, and has urged that this is purely an administrative communication, which does not form part and parcel of the proceedings as contemplated under sub-rule (i) of Rule 5 reproduced above.

8] It cannot be disputed that without such communication being placed on the record of Criminal Application No.40 of 2016, the matter cannot be placed before the Bench, which is constituted for hearing the said application. In view of this, the communication forms part and parcel of the proceedings instituted by the applicant.

The applicant is therefore, clearly entitled to receive such communication, and the refusal to grant copy of it cannot be sustained.

9] In view of above, the order dated 04.03.2016 passed by the Registrar refusing to grant certified copy of the letter constituting the Bench to hear Criminal Application No.40 of 2016, is hereby quashed ::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 10:54:28 ::: cra22.16.J.odt 4/4 and set aside. The Registrar is directed to issue certified copy of the said communication to the applicant within a period of eight days from today.

Civil revision application stands disposed of.

JUDGE NSN ::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 10:54:28 :::