Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

So far as the first, point is concerned, which relates to the question of jurisdiction of the Punjab High Court to issue writs of certiorari or prohibition in these cases, the learned Judges based their decision entirely upon the pronouncement of the Judicial Committee in the well known case of Ryots of Garabandho v.' Zamindar of Parlakitnedi(1). The question for consideration in that case was, whether the High Court of Madras had jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari in respect of an order passed by the Collective Board of Revenue, as an appellate authority, in certain proceedings for settlement of rent between the Zamindar of Parlakimedi and the Ryots of certain villages within his estate situated in the district of Ganjam which was wholly outside the limits of the Presidency town of Madras. The question was answered in the negative. The Judicial Committee laid down that the three Chartered High Courts of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay had powers to issue, what were known as the high prerogative writs, as successors to the Supreme Courts which previously exercised jurisdiction over these Presidency Towns; but the exercise of the powers under the Charter was limited to persons within the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the three High Courts, and outside that jurisdiction it extended only to 'British subjects' as defined in the Charter itself. It was held that the Supreme Court of Madras had no jurisdiction under the Charter which created it to correct or control a country court of the the East India Company deciding a dispute between Indian inhabitants of the Ganjam district about the rent payable for land in that district; and no such power was given by any subsequent legislation to its successor, the High Court . A contention seems to have been raised on behalf of the appellants that the jurisdiction to issue writs could be rounded on the fact that the office of the Board of Revenue, which was the appellate authority in the matter of settlement of rents, was located within the town of Madras (1) 70 I.A. 129.

This line of reasoning does not appear to us to be proper and we do not think that the decision in the Parlakimedi's case(1) is really of assistance in determining the question of jurisdiction of the High Courts in the matter of issuing writs under article 226 of the Constitution. The whole law on this subject has been discussed and elucidated by this court in its recent pronouncement in Election Commission v. Venkata Rao(2 ) where the observations of the Judicial Committee in Parlakimedi's case, upon which reliance has been placed by the Punjab High Court, have been fully explained. It is to be noted first of all, that prior to the commencement of the Constitution the powers of issuing prerogative writs could be exercised in India only by the High Courts of Calcutta,, Madras and Bombay and that also within very rigid and defined limits. The writs could be issued only to the extent that the power in that respect was not taken away 'by the Codes of Civil and Criminal Procedure(3) and they could be directed only to persons and authorities within the original civil jurisdiction of these High Courts. The Constitution introduced a fundamental change of law in this respect. As has been explained by this Court in the case referred to above, while article 225 of the Constitution preserves to the existing High Courts the powers and jurisdictions which they had previously, article 226 confers, on all the High Courts, new and very wide powers (1) 70 I.A. 139.

(1) [1953] S.C.R. 1144.

(3) Vide in this connection Besant v. Tire Advocate General of Madras. 46 I.A. 176.

in the matter of issuing writs which they never possessed before. "The makers of the Constitution" thus observed Patanjali Sastri C.J. in delivering the judgment of the court, "having decided to provide for certain basic safeguards for the people in the new set up, which they called fundamental rights, evidently thought it necessary to provide also a quick and inexpensive remedy for the enforcement of such rights, and, finding that the prerogative writs, which the courts in England had developed and used whenever urgent necessity demanded immediate and decisive interposition, were peculiarly suited for the purpose, they conferred, in the State's sphere, new and wide powers on the High Courts of issuing directions, orders, or writs primarily for the enforcement of fundamental rights, the power to issue such directions, etc. 'for any other purpose' being also included with a view apparently to place all the High Courts in this country in somewhat the same position as the Court of King's Bench in England." There are only two limitations placed upon the exercise of these powers by a High Court under article 226 of the Constitution; one is that-the power is to be exercised "throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction", that is to say, the writs issued' by the court cannot run beyond the territories subject to its jurisdiction. The other limitation is that the person or authority to whom the High COurt is empowered to issue writs "must be within those territories" and this implies that they must be amenable to its jurisdiction either by residence or location within those territories. It is with reference to these two conditions thus mentioned that the jurisdiction of the High Courts to issue writs under article 226 of the Constitution is to be determined. The observations of the Judicial Committee in Parlakimedi's case(1) have strictly speaking no direct bearing on the point. It is true as the Privy Council said in that case that the question of jurisdiction must be regarded as one of substance, but the meaning and implication of this observation could be ascertained only with reference to the context of (1) 701. A. 129.