N.P.AMRUTESH Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(KAR)-2023-5-255
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Decided on
May 30,2023
N.P.AMRUTESH
Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
HARISH UPPAL (EX [REFERRED TO]SOUTH INDIA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED VS. SECRETARY BOARD OF REVENUE TRIVANDRUM [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. BHOPAL SUGAR INDUSTRIES LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
NASIRUDDIN RAMAI VS. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL:STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SANKALGHAND HIMATLAL SHETH [REFERRED TO]
SWARAN LATA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
H H SHRI SWAMIJI OF SHRI AMAR MUTT BHANDARIKERI MUTT VS. COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS DEPART MENT:STATE OF MYSORE [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. NARAYAN SHAMRAO PURANIK [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. NARAYAN SHAMRAO PURANIK [REFERRED TO]
MOTOR GENERAL TRADERS VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
A L KALRA VS. PROJECT AND EQUIPMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
JANATA DAL VS. H.S.CHOWDHARY [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION FOR CITY OF PUNE VS. BHARAT FORGE COMPANY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
S R BHAGWAT VS. STATE OF MYSORE [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. PRAKASH CHAND [REFERRED TO]
BABU VERGHESE VS. BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
M I BUILDERS PVT LIMITED VS. RADHEY SHYAM SAHU [REFERRED TO]
FEDERATION OF BAR ASSOCIATION IN KARNATAKA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. K M SHANKERAPPA [REFERRED TO]
ANIL RAI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
BHAVNAGAR UNIVERSITY VS. PALITANA SUGAR MILL PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
TRIPATI BALAJI DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL VS. BALWANT SINGH CHAUFAL [REFERRED TO]
B V NARAYANA REDDY VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
E RAM MOHAN CHOWDRY VS. REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS REGULATORY BOARD VS. INDRAPRASTHA GAS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION & ORS VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS [REFERRED TO]
KANTARU RAJEEVARU VS. INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. K. T. RAJASHEKAR [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
B.VEERAPPA, J. -
(1.)The petitioner practicing Advocate has filed the present Public Interest Litigation seeking writ of certiorari to struck down
the establishment of Circuit Benches and converting them into
Permanent Bench by the order dtd. 19/10/2004 vide
Annexures-E and F dtd. 4/6/2008 at Dharwad and Gulbarga
and the Presidential Order dtd. 8/8/2013 vide Annexure-M as
unconstitutional, contrary to law and opposed to public interest;
and a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.5 - Auditor
and Comptroller General of India to conduct performance of
audit including financial audit with regard to investment,
expenditure and functional viability of these Benches at Dharwad
and Gulbarga and it's sustenance in public interest.
I - FACTS OF THE CASE
(2.)It is the case of the petitioner that he is a practicing advocate of High Court of Karnataka at Principal Bench, Dharwad and Gulbarga Benches and he is a public spirited citizen, who has taken up several causes of the citizen as also of advocates, in the matter of maintenance of the Rule of law and efficacy of justice delivery system.
(3.)The petition raises several questions of law interalia as to the relative scope and scope of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1961') and establishment of Permanent Bench of the High Court of Karnataka under the provisions of Sec. 51(2) by converting the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Benches at Dharwad and Gulbarga and of the State Re-organisation Act, 1956(for short, hereinafter referred to as 'S.R. Act, 1956) issued under Sec. 51(3) of the S.R. Act, 1956 in 2004/2008. It is further contended that the establishment of the said Benches, first, as Circuit Benches and later converting them as Permanent Benches is contrary to law and severely affects the public interest as it is contrary to the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the Federation of Bar Association -vs- Union of India reported in (2000)6 SCC Page 715 apart from the recommendation of Hon'ble Justice Jaswant Singh's Commission Report, since factually the number of cases, filed, disposed of and the expenditure incurred in maintenance of these establishments are not conducive to the public interest, as it affects the functional integrity and unity of the institution of the Hon'ble High Court. The respondents are the respective authorities representing His Excellency, the Hon'ble President of India, the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Karnataka and His Excellency, the Governor of Karnataka thus answering the description of the term within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and the 5th respondent is a Constitutional authority responsible for undertaking performance of audit, including financial audit of Public Institutions/Authorities.
I - FACTS OF THE CASE
(2.)It is the case of the petitioner that he is a practicing advocate of High Court of Karnataka at Principal Bench, Dharwad and Gulbarga Benches and he is a public spirited citizen, who has taken up several causes of the citizen as also of advocates, in the matter of maintenance of the Rule of law and efficacy of justice delivery system.
(3.)The petition raises several questions of law interalia as to the relative scope and scope of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1961') and establishment of Permanent Bench of the High Court of Karnataka under the provisions of Sec. 51(2) by converting the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Benches at Dharwad and Gulbarga and of the State Re-organisation Act, 1956(for short, hereinafter referred to as 'S.R. Act, 1956) issued under Sec. 51(3) of the S.R. Act, 1956 in 2004/2008. It is further contended that the establishment of the said Benches, first, as Circuit Benches and later converting them as Permanent Benches is contrary to law and severely affects the public interest as it is contrary to the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the Federation of Bar Association -vs- Union of India reported in (2000)6 SCC Page 715 apart from the recommendation of Hon'ble Justice Jaswant Singh's Commission Report, since factually the number of cases, filed, disposed of and the expenditure incurred in maintenance of these establishments are not conducive to the public interest, as it affects the functional integrity and unity of the institution of the Hon'ble High Court. The respondents are the respective authorities representing His Excellency, the Hon'ble President of India, the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Karnataka and His Excellency, the Governor of Karnataka thus answering the description of the term within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and the 5th respondent is a Constitutional authority responsible for undertaking performance of audit, including financial audit of Public Institutions/Authorities.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.