AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI,J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THIS matter had been adjourned to ascertain as to whether the writ petition which was wrongly filed before the Lucknow Bench could be transferred under a judicial order to this Court. The Registrar General has submitted a report that there are no orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice under clause 14 of the Amalgamation Order, 1948. Sri Arvind Srivastava appearing for the petitioners submits that this exercise may not be required in view of the fact that clause 14 can be invoked where a case is appropriately filed before the Lucknow Bench and requires to be transferred to the Principal Bench at Allahabad. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the writ petition ought to have been filed Allahabad itself and was not maintained at Lucknow Bench. In such circumstances, Sri Srivastava submits that in view of two Full Bench's decisions of this Court in the case of Nirmal Dass Khaturia and others Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U.P. and others, reported in 1972 ALJ Page 70 Paragraph 45, and in the case of Ram Lakhan Saran Vs. Sunni Central Board of Waqf, U.P. and others, reported in 1976 ALJ Page 720 Paragraph 39, The Hon'ble Judge sitting at Lucknow Bench of this Court has rightly transferred the case to be presented before this Court.
(3.) THE said two paragraphs i.e. 45 and 39 to the judgments referred to hereinabove are quoted below respectively:- ...... Paragraph 45: "The question next is whether a case which can be heard by the judges at Lucknow is liable to be summarily dismissed if presented before the judges at Allahabad. We have already said that the judges, whether they sit at Allahabad or at Lucknow, are judges of the same High Court. When such a case is presented before the judges at Allahabad it is not presented to a court without jurisdiction. Its presentation before the judges at Allahabad is a more irregularity. The proper procedure would be for filing before the judges at Lucknow, and where the case has been mistakenly or inadvertantly entertained at Allahabad to direct the High Court office to transmit the papers of that case to Lucknow." ........ Paragraph 39: "For the discussion in the foregoing, I am of the view that the Bench of the High Court at Lucknow and not the Bench at Allahabad has jurisdiction and power in respect of cases arising in the whole erstwhile Oudh, which comprised of the twelve districts, including the district of Faizabad, referred to hereinabove. The present appeal was, however, filed in this Court before the Bench sitting at Allahabad. The appellants did approach this Court but presented their appeal before a wrong Bench of the Court. The defect can, however, be cured. In my opinion, the ends of justice would be met if the appeal is sent to the Bench of this Court sitting at Lucknow to have it registered there and deal with it further in accordance with law." ;