R.R.K.Trivedi - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking number of reliefs but the main relief appears to be for quashing of order dated 19-12-1989 by which the services of the petitioner as Principal Judge of the Family Court at Lucknow have been terminated. The petitioner has further prayed for directing respondents nos. 1 and 2 to comply with the decision of the administrative committee of this court dated 7-12-1989 which was communicated to the respondents nos. 1 and 2 of the Joint Registrar on the same date. According to this letter of the Joint Registrar the decision of the administrative committee was that the petitioner is entitled to continue on the post upto the age of 62 years. In respect of this relief reference has also been made to the order dated 19-3-1990 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The other reliefs claimed are not necessary to be referred to as this stage.
(2.) IN brief, the case of the petitioner is that he was appointed Judge of the Family Court at Lucknow vide order dated 25-9-1986. Subsequently he was appointed Principal Judge. The order of appointment has been filed as Annexure IX to the writ petition. According to the petitioner the term of Judge of a family court in view of the provisions of Sub-section (5) of section 4 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (Act No. 66 of 1984) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is upto 62 years and he could not be terminated from service on 19-12-1989 by respondent no. 1. The order is illegal and void. Certain allegations have also been made in the writ petition against respondent no. 2 and it has been alleged that he ignored the decision of the Administrative Committee of this Court. The petitioner firstly filed writ petition no. 182 of 1990 before the Lucknow Bench of this Court and sought relief of quashing the order dated 19-12-1989. IN that writ petition also the contention of the petitioner was that he is entitled to continue as Principal Judge of the Family Court at Lucknow until he attains the age of 62 years. Some other reliefs were also claimed in the writ petition. This writ petition was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn on 2-5-1990 in the application of the petitioner. The present writ petition was got reported from the Stamp Reporter on 16-5-1990. The Stamp Reporter recorded his opinion on the writ petition that the instant writ petition should be filed at Lucknow bench of this court. On 17-5-1990 the writ petition was admitted by a division bench of this court and notices were issued to the respondents. Some day the application for interim order was also considered and an order to the following effect was passed : "Issue notice. The learned Standing Counsel is granted three weeks to file counter affidavit. Until further orders, the operation of the order dated 19-12-1989 shall remain stayed. A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents nos. 1 and 2 to pay salary to the petitioner regularly in accordance with law and to provide the other necessary amenities which the petitioner i s entitled to, till the petitioner attains the age of 62 years." I have been informed that the petitioner has already attained the age of 62 years and has thus completed the full term as claimed by him in the present writ petition. Normally in the aforesaid circumstances the writ petition could be said to be infructuous but as the question whether the petitioner was legally entitled to continue on the post upto the age of 62 years as claimed by him and directed by this Court by way of interim order; has yet to be decided and the determination of the question may affect the petitioner's right to get salary and may also affect his right to receive pensionary benefits, the writ petition still deserves to be decided on merits. On service of the notice counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and the writ petition was listed for hearing before me. At the time of hearing preliminary objection have been raised by the respondents challenging the maintainability of the writ petition on two counts; firstly, on the ground that cause of action for filing the writ petition has arisen at Lucknow and thus the writ petition could not be filed before this Hon'ble Court at Allahabad and secondly, that the petitioner filed his first writ petition before Lucknow Bench of this Court for the same relief which was withdrawn by him without obtaining the leave of the Court to file a fresh petition and hence the present petition is barred.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents in support of his contention that the present writ petition could not be legally filed and entertained at Allahabad has placed reliance on the cases Nasir Uddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, AIR 1976 SC 331 and Surendra Singh v. State of U. P., 1988 AWC SC 15. The contention of the learned counsel is that the petitioner was working as Principal Judge of the Family Court at Lucknow at the time the impugned order dated 19-12-1989 was passed against him. The order was passed by respondents nos. 1 and 2 at Lucknow which is the seat of the Government, hence the cause of action only arose at Lucknow and the writ petition could only be filed before the Lucknow Bench of this Court. The writ petition has been wrongly filed and entertained at Allahabad. The learned counsel for the petitioner contested the aforesaid preliminary objection raised by the respondents and contended that the writ petition could be legally filed at Allahabad in view of the fact that the decision of the Administrative Committee of this Court was taken at Allahabad on 27-12-1989 and secondly as the Supreme Court vide its order dated 19-3-1990 expressed opinion to approach this Court for the enforcement of its order dated 27-12-1989. The learned counsel for the petitioner has thus tried to establish on the basis of these two orders that the part of cause of action for the petitioner has arisen outside the earstwhile Avadh and the writ petition could be legally filed at Allahabad.;