Allahabad High Court Issues Notice On Plea Seeking Re-Allocation Of Territorial Jurisdiction Between Benches At Prayagraj & Lucknow

A Division Bench comprising of Justices Ritu Raj Awasthi and Manish Mathur said that it would would like the Association to express its views and address the Court on the abovesaid issue.

The development comes at a time when the High Court Bar Associations of the two Benches are already at loggerheads with respect to establishment of Tribunals in the State.

The instant PIL emphasizes that under the current system, cases from 60 districts of UP fall under the jurisdiction of the Principal seat at Prayaraj whereas cases from only 15 districts are filed at Lucknow.

It states,

"The grievance of the petitioners which is that out of 75 districts of the state of Uttar Pradesh, the territorial jurisdiction of 60 districts lies before high court at Prayagraj and the high court at Lucknow exercise jurisdiction over 15 districts only.

Their further grievance is that out of 60 districts, the cases arising from where are filed at Prayagraj, there are several such districts the vehicle (Car, bus, train, bike etc) from which a person residing in these districts is going to file his case at Prayagraj passes through Lucknow, where a high court in operative but has not empowered to accept their cases and to address and redress their grievance."

The plea further avers that not only the litigants but even the public servants posted in these districts are caused to suffer a lot when they are asked to come to Prayagraj to file some affidavit or to put their appearance in court.

It is submitted,

"Public servants posted in Barely and Muradabad Mandal can reach to Lucknow to attend the court case and can return to their place of posting on the same day and after reaching to their office, can perform the duties attached with their office whereas if they are to appear at Prayagraj, they are bound to leave the office one day before and will return back to the place of their posting on the next day or in the late night."

Other grounds taken by the Petitioner are as follows:

• City of Lucknow is a well-connected city where train, buses and flight services are much better than Prayagraj.
• Prayagraj is situated at the border of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, whereas Lucknow is situated in the in the center of the state.
• Intention behind the creation of Benches is to provide place of justice near to your place of residence but this principle does not apply on the bench created at Lucknow

The plea also challenges the applicability of the United Provinces' High Court Amalgamation Order, 1948 and the Indian High Court's Act, 1861, which declare that the principal seat of the High Court will be at Allahabad.

It is argued that the Act of 1861 and the Order of 1948 ceased to operate after coming into force of the Indian Constitution in 1950. The plea further states, "the present high courts are the creation of our Constitution through its Article 216 and not some Act passed by the invaders (British Parliament)."

The plea is filed by Advocates Ashok Pandey, Shiva Kant Tripathi, Dr. Shamsher Yadav Jagrana, Dinesh Kumar Tripathi, Rama Kant Dixit, GL Yadav, Ankit Mishra and Monika Singh.

Also Read: Establish Uttar Pradesh Educational Services Tribunal Only After Court's Permission: Allahabad High Court

Also Read: Allahabad HC Stops Establishment Of GST Appellate Tribunal In UP Without Court's Permission

Related News

In 2018, a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court dismissed a plea seeking establishment of a permanent Bench of the High Court of Allahabad for Western Uttar Pradesh.

The issue was agitated once again in the Parliament by BJP MP from Uttar Pradesh, Vijay Tomar. He pointed out that the High Courts of states like Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh are much closer to western districts of the state as compared to the Allahabad High Court.

"It cannot be the subject matter of judicial determination and directions," the Supreme Court had said in 2018. Tomar thus urged the Centre to consider the issue, especially in view of the pandemic where people were restricted from travelling.

Case Title: Ashok Pandey & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Click Here To Download Order

Read Order