- (1.) In the present proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners question the propriety of the decision of this High Court pursuant to which the powers exercised by the Sessions Judges in this State have been required to be exclusively exercised in respect of certain matters by the Additional Sessions Judges stationed at some sub-divisions. The petitioners are associations of practising advocates of Purba Medinipur.
(2.) It is necessary first to see the decision of the High Court as reflected in the relevant resolution of the Administrative Committee meeting of May 11, 2011: " Therefore, it is made clear that in all Districts of the State of West Bengal having Additional District & Sessions Judge in sub-divisions, filing of matrimonial suits and motor accident claims cases shall be allowed, for which the respective District Judges should make necessary provision. It is further made clear that the Resolution of the Administrative Committee (of) June 9, 1999, does not prohibit filing of such applications and suit; on the other hand, it clearly records that Additional District & Sessions Judges located at the sub-divisional headquarters shall have the requisite power of accepting the filing of all appeals, applications etc., which includes matrimonial suits and motor accident claims cases. The only prohibition is in respect of applications and suits which are required to be filed before the District Judge under any statute, to mean, where the statue specifically provides that such applications/suits will be decided by the District Judges as persona designata."
(3.) The above resolution of the High Court was clarificatory in nature as the original decision of the High Court adopting the Administrative Committee resolution of June 9, 1999 had given rise to several queries.;