Court’s decision
The Bombay High Court ruled that the present petition under Article 227 was not maintainable before the principal seat because the controversy arose entirely within Kolhapur district, and Rule 3A of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules mandates that such petitions be heard only by the designated bench at Kolhapur. The Court emphasised that territorial jurisdiction under Article 227 is not a matter of litigant preference, observing that “jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent or convenience,” especially when the Rules framed under Article 225 explicitly regulate distribution of business.
Relying on binding constitutional and administrative law principles, the Court held that once the Chief Justice has allocated districts to specific benches, matters “arising from” those districts must be placed before that bench, irrespective of where the petitioner resides, where counsel is engaged, or where administrative hardship is claimed. The Court therefore declined to entertain the petition and directed that the matter be placed before the appropriate bench at Kolhapur in accordance with Rule 3A.
Facts
The Petitioner invoked Article 227 seeking interference with orders passed by courts situated in Kolhapur district. The Petition was filed at the principal seat in Mumbai, asserting practical convenience and difficulty in travelling. The dispute from which the petition arose involved proceedings wholly conducted within Kolhapur district, and all operative events, parties, and judicial orders emanated from that territorial jurisdiction.
Although the Petitioner contended that filing at Mumbai was necessitated by personal and logistical considerations, the Respondent objected to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that Rule 3A expressly provides that petitions arising from Kolhapur district must be heard at the Kolhapur Bench. The matter came before the Court for determination of territorial jurisdiction and the scope of Rule 3A in regulating Article 227 filings.
Issues
The central issues before the Court were:
- Whether a petition under Article 227 relating to proceedings in Kolhapur district can be validly instituted before the principal seat at Mumbai.
- Whether Rule 3A of the Appellate Side Rules restricts such petitions exclusively to the Kolhapur Bench.
- Whether litigant convenience or cause-title address can override territorial allocation fixed by the Chief Justice.
- How precedents such as Prakash Chand, Ambica Industries, and ABC Papers influence bench-allocation under Article 225.
Petitioner’s arguments
The Petitioner argued that jurisdiction under Article 227 is supervisory in nature and therefore not subject to rigid territorial restrictions. It was contended that as the High Court exercises superintendence over all courts in Maharashtra, a litigant cannot be compelled to approach a particular bench. The Petitioner asserted that Rule 3A should be treated as directory, not mandatory, because its application could cause hardship to litigants who lack access to legal representation in distant districts.
The Petitioner further urged that the cause-title address is within the State and therefore does not violate any territorial limitation. It was submitted that since the relief sought was supervisory and not appellate, the Petition could be maintained before any bench of the High Court in exercise of its constitutional powers.
Respondent’s arguments
The Respondent argued that Rule 3A has statutory force because it is framed under Article 225, which authorises the High Court to regulate its own business. It was submitted that allocation of territorial jurisdiction to specific benches is binding, and once the Chief Justice has assigned Kolhapur district to the Kolhapur Bench, the principal seat cannot assume jurisdiction unless the Rules are amended.
The Respondent relied on constitutional principles to argue that bench allocation is an internal judicial discipline matter and cannot be overridden by litigant convenience. It was emphasised that permitting filings contrary to Rule 3A would cause forum shopping and undermine the administrative structure of the High Court.
Analysis of the law
The Court began by examining Article 225, which empowers High Courts to frame rules for distribution of judicial business. Rule 3A was enacted pursuant to this authority and therefore carries binding effect. The Court held that territorial division of work between benches is an administrative and constitutional mechanism, not a matter of procedural convenience.
The Court concluded that the expression “arising from” in Rule 3A signifies that the factual origin of the dispute determines the bench before which the Petition must be filed. Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 continues to extend over all subordinate courts, but that broad jurisdiction does not override bench-specific administrative allocation. The supervisory power remains intact; only the forum of exercise is regulated.
Precedent analysis
The Court referred to Prakash Chand, which held that the Chief Justice is the master of roster and has exclusive authority to determine bench allocation. This principle flows directly from constitutional structure and applies with full force to territorial bench distribution.
The Court also relied on Ambica Industries, where the Supreme Court clarified that territorial jurisdiction depends on the situs of the adjudicating authority whose order is under challenge. This aligns with Rule 3A’s requirement that matters arising from a district be filed before the bench that supervises that district.
The decision also drew support from ABC Papers, which reinforced that jurisdiction cannot be enlarged merely on the basis of convenience or residence, and that statutory or rule-based allocation must prevail. Nasiruddin was cited for the principle that expressions such as “arising from” must be construed according to the situs of the cause and not the subjective convenience of the litigant.
Court’s reasoning
The Court held that the Petitioner’s argument of supervisory universality under Article 227 was misplaced because although the High Court’s superintendence extends across the State, the internal allocation of business ensures orderly functioning of the judicial system. The Court found that Rule 3A clearly places matters arising from Kolhapur district within the exclusive domain of the Kolhapur Bench.
The Court reasoned that permitting parties to file petitions at Mumbai based on convenience would “render territorial allocation meaningless” and open the door to forum shopping. Since every order challenged in the Petition emanated from Kolhapur, and all factual occurrences were within that district, the Court held that jurisdiction lay exclusively with the Kolhapur Bench. The Petition was therefore declined on maintainability grounds.
Conclusion
The Court concluded that petitions under Article 227 concerning proceedings originating from Kolhapur district must be filed before the Kolhapur Bench by virtue of Rule 3A. It held that internal judicial discipline and constitutional structure prevent the principal seat from assuming jurisdiction that properly belongs to another bench. As the Petition was filed before the wrong forum, the Court declined to entertain it and directed that it be placed before the appropriate bench.
Implications
This judgment has significant administrative and constitutional implications. It reinforces the authority of the Chief Justice in regulating judicial business and upholds the mandatory character of bench-specific territorial allocations. The decision also curbs forum shopping and ensures uniformity in the application of Appellate Side Rules. Litigants must now exercise care in determining the correct territorial bench when invoking Article 227, particularly in districts assigned under Rule 3A.