- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decided
- 27 July 2009
- Bench
- Markandey Katju, Asok Kumar Ganguly
- Case no.
- Civil Appeal No.4774 of 2009
- Result
- Appeal allowed.
Headnote
PUBLIC PREMISES:
Allotment of accommodation for court - High Court directing a particular building belonging to State Government to be allotted for Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court - Held: It was not within the jurisdiction of High Court to direct the ::l Government to allot a particular land or building for the
purpose - High Court can only make a request to Government in this regard - There must be restraint on the part of judiciary on these matters - Order of High Couf( set aside - Chief Secretary to the State Government requested to discuss the matter with Registrar General of the High Court so as to resolve the problem ~ Judicial restraint .!. Administration of justice ..
Divisional Manager, Aravali Gold Club & Another vs. Chander Hase & Another, (2008) 1 SCC 683, Common Cause vs. Union of India, (200a) 5 Sec· 511, relied on.
Headnote as published in the Digital Supreme Court Reports by the Supreme Court of India. Paragraph references point to the judgment below.
Judgment
ORDER
Leave granted.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants.
This Appeal, by grant of special leave, has been filed against the impugned judgment of the High Court of Madras dated 19th February, 2008.
It appears that some accommodation was required for the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court at Pennagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri District, Tamil Nadu, By the impugned order, the High Court has directed that the old Block Development Office building shall be allotted for the aforesaid Court.
In our view, it was not within the jurisdiction of the High Court to pass the aforesaid Order. We can understood t-he High Court's concern th~' there should be proper accommoda~ion for the Munsifs Court, but for that purpose the High Court can only make a request to the Government and not direct the Government to allot or give a particular land or building which belongs to the Government or to anyone else. This Court has been repreatedly saying that the judiciary should not ordinarily encroach into the domain of the exectuive or legislature vide Divisional Manager, Aravali .Gold Club & Another vs. Chander Hass & Another, (2008) 1 SCC 683, Common Cause vs. Union of India, (2008) 5 SCC 511, etc. There must be restraint in these matter on the part of the judicaiary. We are confindent that if the judiciary makes a request to the 1· Government, the Government will consider that request with
great respect and take suitable steps for the smooth functioning of the Court. However, but in such matters, the Court cannot """' direct the government to allot a particular land or building for
that purpose.
Accordingly, we accept this appeal; set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and request the Chief Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu to discuss the matter with the Registrar General of the High Court so as to reslove the problem as early as possible, preferably within a period of two months' from today. No order as to costs.
Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu as well as Registrar General of the Madras High Court.
Case details
Arising from
CIVIL AP.PELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4774 of 2009.
From the Judgment & Order dated 19.2.2008 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.P. No. 30663 of 2007. r
Appearances
N. Shoba and Sri Ram J Thalapathy for the Appellants. V. Prabhakar (for Revathy Raghavan) for the Respondents.
Source: Supreme Court of India, Digital Supreme Court Reports, via the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open dataset (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.