M R DEO Vs. STATE
LAWS(MPH)-1949-11-1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on November 14,1949

M.R. DEO Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

REX V. DAVIES [REFERRED TO]
SURAJMULL BRIJLAL V. COMMR. OF INCOME-TAX BANDO. [REFERRED TO]
DATTATRAYA VISHNU V. REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,G P.AND BERAR,NAGPUR [REFERRED TO]
HADI HUSAIN VS. NASIR UDDIN HAIDER [REFERRED TO]
RYOTS OF GARABANDHO VS. ZEMINDAR OF PARLAKIMEDI [REFERRED TO]
MRS ANNIE BESANT VS. ADVOCATE GENERAL OF MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
LEGAL REMEMBRANCER VS. MATILAL GHOSE [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL MARWARI VS. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS is an application by Mr. M. K. Deo, Advocate, Madhya Bharat High Court that a writ of certiorari should issue to the Subha and District Magistrate Indore to bring up, in order to be quashed, an order passed on 22nd October 1949 by District Magistrate Under Section 3 Madhya Bharat Maintenance of Public Order Act. The said order prohibits the applicant for three months from participating in any meeting, public or private, organised by any association. It further prohibits the applicant from issuing any leaflet or newspaper, propagating communist views or that of Karmachari sangh. A preliminary objection was raised by the learned Advocate-General that Madhya Bharat High Court is not invested with the jurisdiction to issue the high prerogative writ of certiorari. This would involve an inquiry into the nature and origin of the writ of certiorari as will as the constitution and jurisdiction of the power and authority of this Court.
(2.)THE ancient writ of certiorari in England is an original but which may issue out of a superior Court requiring that the record of the proceedings in some cause or matter pending before an inferior Court should be transmitted into the superior Court to be there dealt with. The writ is so named because, in its original Latin form, it required that the King should "be Certified" of the proceedings to be investigated and the object is to them by the exercise of the authority of Supreme Court, that the jurisdiction of the inferior tribunal should be properly exercised. The remedy, in point of principle, is derived from the Superintending Authority which the Sovereign's Superior Court and in particular the Court of King's Bench, possess and exercise over inferior jurisdictions. This principle has been transplanted to other parts of the King's dominions, and operates, within certain limits in British India; vide Ryots of Garabandho v. Zamindar of Parlakvmedi A. I. R. (30) 1943 P. C. 164 : I. L. R. (1944) Kar P. C. 119.
(3.)NOW it was contended by Mr. Homi Daji, learned pleader for the applicant that according to Section 20, Madhya Bharat High Court of Judicature Act, Samvat 2005, the High Court shall be Court of record. He further contended that according to Section 21, the High Court possesses extraordinary jurisdiction to remove and transfer to itself and to try and determine as a Court of extraordinary jurisdiction, both civil and criminal any suit, case or other proceeding being ox falling within the jurisdiction of any Court, civil or criminal, subject to its superintendence, when the High Court may think proper to do so in the interest of justice.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.