Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Bar Association, Sri Ganganagar vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 15 September, 1994
Equivalent citations: AIR1995RAJ11, 1995(1)WLC9
JUDGMENT Milap Chandra Jain, J.
1. Courts exist for the litigants and not for Judges and Lawyers and litigants' interest is Supreme.
2. This writ petition has been filed for declaring Section 20A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be called the Act) as ultra vires of the Constitution and for quashing the order No. F. 12(26)Raj/Gr. 1/77-11 dated June 27, 1994 (Annexure 4) of the Revenue Department (Group 1), Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur issued under Section 20A of the Act notifying that the Revenue appellate Authority, Sri Ganga-nagar will have his place of sitting at Raishinghnagar also for a week.
3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the State Government is misusing its power from time to time just to suit its convenience and to achieve something by pressing into service the provisions of Section 20A of the Act. He further contended that similar notification dated April 4, 1980 by which the jurisdiction of the Revenue Appellate Authorities, Jodh-pur and Ajmer was sought to be changed was challenged in Writ Petition No. 952/90 Ajij Khan v. State of Rajasthan, stay was granted, subsequently the notification was modified and as such the writ petition was not pressed, he also contended that the writ petition No. 2929/88 Mana Ram v. State has been filed challenging another similar notification dated August 19, 1988, stay has been granted, thereon the said notification dated August 19, 1988 was kept in abeyance, the writ petition" became infructuous and it is thus clear that the State Government does not want verdict of the High Court about the validity of Section 20A of the Act. He further contended that due to the impugned notification Annexure 4, the members of the petitioner's Association have been put to great inconvenience they shall be required to go to Raisinghnagar for conducting the cases in which they have been engaged otherwise their clients will be forced to engage Advocates at Raisingnagar, they have to incur additional expenditure to pay their fees and as such holding of a camp court at Raisinghnagar will tax the litigants more instead of giving relief to them. He also contended that Section 20A of the Act does not provide any guidelines, it confers absolute and arbitrary powers upon the State Government, it is ultra vires of Arts. 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and its validity has been challenged in writ petition No. 5944/93 Roopa Ram v. State of Rajasthan.
4. At the time of the admission-hearing, the learned Additional Advocate General was requested to assist the Court. He contended that in para 10 of the writ petition it has been averred that about 2700 cases are presently pending before the Revenue Appellate Authority Sri Ganganagar, out of them as many as 2000 cases are of the area of Raisinghnagar Sub-Division, this shows that 74% cases (revenue appeals, revisions and references) arise out of the Raisinghnagar Sub-Division and only 26% cases arise out of Sri Ganganagar Sub-Division, thus issuance of the said notification Annexure 4 is in the interest of the litigant public of Raisinghnagar Subdivision, they will not now be required to come to Sri Ganganagar for filing their cases before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sri Ganganagar as they can file before him during days of his camp court at Raisinghnagar and the lawyers who represent them before the trial court can file and argue them. He further contended that the parties of 2000 cases pending will have choice, they may request the Revenue Appellate Authority to hear them either at Sri Ganganagar or at Raisinghnagar. He also contended that the State Government fixes the places of sitting of the Revenue Appellate Authorities keeping in view institution and pendency of the cases arising out of the areas comprised within the territories of various places of sitting. He lastly contended that in para 4 of the writ petition it has been averred that the State Government is misusing its powers under Section 20A of the Act from time to time to suit its convenience and to achieve something, it has not been shown as to how the power is being misused and what is being achieved by misusing it and their necessary particulars have not been given.
5. Section 20A of the Act runs as under :--
"20A. Revenue appellate authority-- (1) The State Government may appoint such number of officers not being less than three, as may be found necessary, to receive, hear and dispose of appeals, revisions and references in revenue judicial cases and other matters specifically provided for by law.
(2) Every officer so apointed shall be designated as revenue appellate authority and shall for the exercise of his jurisdiction and the performance of his duties, sit at such place or places, as the State Government may from time to time direct."
6. Notification No. F. I2(26)/Raj/Gr. I/ 77-11 dated December 3, 1992 (Annexure 3) issued under Section 20A of the Act shows that at present 12 officers have been appointed as Revenue Appellate Authorities and their territorial jurisdiction and places of sitting have been specified therein. The places of sittings are specified under Section 20A (2) of the Act keeping in view the institution and pendency of the cases arising out of the territorial areas attached with those places. Section 16, Rajasthan Civil Court Ordinance, 1950 enshrines that the State Government may, by notification in the official gazette, fix and alter the place or places at which any civil court under this Ordinance is to be held. Similarly, Section 4 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act 1887, Section 22A, Bombay Civil Courts Act. 1869 and Section 21.
Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1972 cm-power the respective State Government to fix and alter the place or places at which any civil court under the Acts is to be held by notification in the official gazette. Section 12, M. P. Civil Courts Act, 1958 empowers High Court to fix places of the sitting of various Civil Courts. Section 10(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides that the court of sessions shall ordinarily hold its sitting at such place or places as the High Court, by notification, specify. Section 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 states that in every district there shall be established as many courts of Judicial Magistrates of 1st Class or of IInd Class and at such places as the State Government may, after consultation with the High Court, by notification, specify. None of the aforesaid provisions has so far been held ultra vires of the Constitution for want of any guidelines in them. It is improper tc decide the validity of a provision of an Act with the assumption that the Government misuses its power. It has been observed in N. B. Khare v. State of Delhi, AIR 1950 SC 211 at page 214 para 6 (end), as follows:--
".....Moreover, this whole argument is based on the assumption that the Provincial Government when making the order will not perform its duty and may abuse the provisions of the section. In my opinion it is improper to start with such an assumption and decide the legality of an Act on thai basis.. Abuse of power given by a law sometimes occurs; but the validity of the law cannot be contested because of such an apprehension."
It has been observed in Matajog Dobey v. H. C. Bhari, AIR 1956 SC 44 at page 48 para 15.
"It has to be borne in mind that a discretionary power is not necessarily a discriminatory power and that abuse of power is not to be easily assumed where the discretion is vested in the government and not in a minor official."
7. Paramount consideration for specifying the places of sitting is the convenience of litigants. Article 38 of the Constitution of India also requires that the State shall endeavour to eliminate inequalities in facilities and opportunities not only amongst individuals but also amongst groups of people residing in different areas. Article 39A enshrines that the State shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice on the basis of equal opportunity. Specifying Raisinghnagar as an additional place of sitting of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sri Ganganagar for a week by the impugned notification Annexure 4 is in the direction of the aforesaid directive principles of the State Policy.' It goes to eliminate inequalities in facilities and opportunities which existed prior to the issuance of the said notification (Annexure 4) in between the residents of Sri Ganganagar Sub-division and of Raisinghnagar Sub-division in respect of the court of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sri Ganganagar. After its issuance, the residents of both the Sub-divisions i.e. Sri Ganganagar and Raisinghnagar, have equal facilities and opportunities for the court of the Revenue Appellate Authority. It cannot, therefore, be said that the provisions of Section 20 A of the Act are ultra vires of the Constitution.
8. It has been averred in para No. 10 of the writ petition "It may be relevant to mention here that at present the number of cases before the Appellate Authority, Sri Ganganagar is about 2700 and out of those 2700 cases as many as 2000 cases are from the area falling within the sub-division of Raisinghnagar." This itself shows that 74% of the pending cases arise out of the area of Raisinghnagar Sub-division. By the impugned notification, the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sri Ganganagar has his camp court at Raisinghnagar for a week only. These 74% cases of the area of Raisinghnagar Subdivision may be heard either at Sri Ganganagar or Raisinghnagar during the days of camp court as may be desired by the parties. Moreover, it has not been averred in the writ petition that the right of the members of the petitioner-Association to appear and conduct cases in which they had filed vakalatnama on behalf of their clients was in any way abridged. By the impugned notification (Annexure 4), pending.cases relating to the area attached with Raisinghnagar are not necessarily to be heard at Raisinghnagar. Even otherwise, one thing is clear that pecuniary gain or advantage has never been allowed to assume primary importance in the discharge of professional duties. Cases to be instituted in future by the parties of the area of Raisinghnagar Sub-division may be instituted at Raisinghnagar before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sri Ganganagar during the day of his camp court there and thus the parties will not be required to engage two lawyers, one at Sri Ganganagar and another at Raisinghnagar. It cannot, therefore, be said that the State Government has misused its power under Section 20A of the Act by issuing impugned notification Annexure 4. After the disposal of the said 2000 pending cases, the Revenue Appellate Authority may be required to sit for more days at Raisinghnagar than at Sri Ganganagar and his headquarter may be required to be shifted at Raisinghnagar. The Government may consider it at the appropriate time.
9. There is yet another aspect of the matter, the petitioner being a Bar Association has no 'locus standi' to file the writ petition. Lawyers cannot question the establishment of a new Court. It has been observed in the famous case of S. P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149 (Seven Hon'ble Judges) at page 571 para 974, as follows :--
"It has, however, to be made clear that it cannot be said that lawyers only because they have a right to practise in a court have 'locus standi' to file petitions in respect of every matter concerning judges, courts and administration of justice. There are many such matters in which they have no 'locus standi' to ask for relief. By way of illustration, lawyers cannot question the establishment of a new court on the ground that their professional prospects would be affected thereby."
10. No other point was pressed.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with costs. Copies of this order be sent to the respondents for information and necessary action.