AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Elipe Dharma Rao, J
Writ petition No. 28144/2010 has been filed to issue a writ of declaration declaring Amending Act 19 of 2010 as published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary bearing No. 154 dated 27.05.2010, so far as it pertains to the Amendment in Sections 1(1 and 2), 3 and 4(2) of the aforesaid Amending Act, as void and ultra vires the State legislature and consequentially, to strike it down as unconstitutional. Writ of declaration declaring Section 3A of the Chennai City Civil Courts Act 1892 as void and ultra vires the State Legislative and consequentially, strike it down as unconstitutional. Originally, the above writ petitions were heard by the Hon''ble First Bench of this court on 10.12.2010 and on that day, the Hon''ble First Bench has made the following observations:
The very same petitioner had earlier filed two writ petitions before this court viz., W.P. Nos. 16127 and 16128 of 2010 with identical prayers. Those writ petitions were heard by this Bench and by a reasoned judgment dated 04.08.2010, the aforesaid amending Act was upheld and it was held that the State Legislature is competent to make such legislations. As against the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner filed Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court, being Nos. 26951-26952 of 2010. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner withdrew the Special Leave Petitions and the Supreme Court, on 29.10.2010, passed the following order:
After hearing the case for a while and realizing that he will not be able to convince the Court on the issue of maintainability of the writ petition filed for striking down the amendment made in Chennai City Civil Courts Act, 1934 without impleading the State of Tamil Nadu as a party, learned counsel made a prayer that his client may be permitted to withdraw the special leave petition, as also the writ petition with liberty to file fresh petition.
The request of the learned counsel is accepted and the special leave petitions are dismissed with liberty in terms of the prayer made.
From the aforesaid order, it is clear that the petitioner did not bring to the notice of the Honourable Supreme Court that the State of Tamil Nadu (Secretary to Government, Law Department, Omandurer Government Estate, Secretariat, Chennai. 2) was a party in the writ petition as respondent No. 1 However, the present writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner.
Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the instant writ petitions may be transferred to another Bench for hearing on two grounds-firstly, since this Bench has decided the matter earlier and secondly, that a local Judge only can hear and decide the writ petitions.
The aforesaid submission is wholly improper and unjustified A Judge is not supposed to decide any case on the basis of the local environment and the public views; rather, the court is supposed to decide the cases on the basis of law which is applicable for the time being in force. However, since a doubt has crept in the mind of the learned counsel, we direct the matter to be listed before the Division Bench presided over by Elipe Dharma Rao, J.
That is how the writ petitions came to be listed before this Court. As early as on 21.12.2010, the writ petitions were admitted and they were directed to be posted for hearing on 18.01.2011. Thereafter, at the instance of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, the matter was adjourned several times. On 02.04.2012 this Court, after hearing the learned counsel appearing on either side, observed that, if the assent of his Excellency the President of India is not obtained within a period of eight weeks from that date with regard to the issue involved in these writ petitions, then, this Court would consider granting an order of interim stay as prayed for. Even thereafter, the matter came to be adjourned several times at the instance of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Therefore, it is clear that, though this Court facilitated the respondents to rectify the lacuna yet, the respondents have not shown any interest to comply with the order dated 02.04.2012 passed by this court. In view of the non-compliance of the said order passed by this court, the writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.