'Courts Exist For Convenience Of Litigants, Not Advocates': Bombay HC Rejects Bar Association's Plea Against Establishment Of Court At Wai

The Bombay High Court has rejected the writ petition filed by Satara District Bar Association, opposing its decision to establish the Court of an Additional District Judge and the Court of a Civil Judge in Maharashtra's Wai town. The Association had stated that the decision would put Judicial officers, staff and litigants to great difficulty.While dismissing the writ petition, a bench of Justices G.S.Patel and Madhav J Jamdar said,"The real difficulty with this Petition is that it is unclear what is the legal right that the Petitioner is asserting when it says that this High Court should not consider establishing a Court at Wai. It seems to us that this is entirely self-serving...We do not deny that the Bar has a role to play in the administration of justice. We however emphatically assert that it is the interest of the litigants that is paramount and the role of the Court and all those who enable its functioning, whether Judges or lawyers, are meant to assist the delivery of justice to the litigant."In this regard, the Court took note of the Bombay High Court's judgment in Ahmad M Abdi v State of Maharashtra and Others, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 89, wherein it was held that "The consumer of justice is the litigant and, therefore, the convenience of the majority of litigants should be a major and primary consideration for selecting a plot for allotment for new High Court complex. The majority of litigants come from far away districts. If the new High Court Complex is established at a place which is not easily accessible by means of a public transport to a large number of litigants who come from the Districts, it will affect their fundamental right of access to justice."Perusing the above observation, the High Court noted that in the said case also the question of easy accessibility to litigants was considered and, the Court did not think it necessary to address 'the convenience of Advocates'.Reliance was also placed on the Supreme Court's decision in State of Maharashtra v Narayan Shamrao Puranik And Others, (1982) 3 SCC 519, relating to the establishment of the Aurangabad Bench of the High Court, wherein it was reiterated that "Courts exist for the convenience of the litigants."The Petitioner-Association had argued that the High Court had considered only the caseload pendency in Wai and had ignored other criteria such as buildings, infrastructure, distance, transportation and convenience of litigants, before arriving to a conclusion to establish a court at Wai.Rejecting this contention, the Bench observed,"It is clear that the High Court took into account other factors down to details such as adequacy of accommodation for judicial officers in Wai and it is only on being satisfied that there were all these feasibilities that it made its proposal. To say, therefore, that the High Court considered nothing except pendency of cases is factually incorrect and is demonstrated to be incorrect on the record itself."The Court also took note of the narrative made by the Petitioner-Association about Naxalite movements, difficulties in communication and opined that there is no question of any of these other factors being adverse factors locations. "We will discount this as being a considerable exaggeration," it remarked. Next, the Petitioner-Association had argued that the High Court has completely ignored the State Government and it ought to have consulted the State Government. Even if the Court's view was determinative, the State Government should first have been consulted.Rejecting this submission, the Court made it clear that,"There is no such hard and fast rule. The High Court on its administrative side is primarily concerned with the administration of justice in its widest possible sense. It makes no difference whether the High Court first formulates a proposal and then places it before the Government for an opinion or whether the proposal comes from the Government. Nothing can possibly turn on this. It is clear that operationally neither the High Court nor the State Government can go around establishing Courts on their own without the involvement of the other. That is all that needs to be said in this regard. The High Court's view in any case has primacy." Strength was drawn from the judgment in Partur Advocate Bar Association v State of Maharashtra, 2016(4) Mh.LJ 498.Finally, the High Court dismissed the petition and observed,"Two important aspects of this are the speedy and timely delivery of justice and physical access to justice. The establishment of a Court in a close proximity cannot really be said to be an undesirable thing to litigants who are in the vicinity of the proposed Court. There is no reason why a litigant should, on the Petitioners' representation be required to travel 35 kms from Wai to Satara rather than have a Court in Wai itself; or to travel 55 kms from Khandala to Satara instead of 27 kms from Khandala to Wai or 60 kms from Mahabaleshwar to Satara rather than 33 kms from...

'Courts Exist For Convenience Of Litigants, Not Advocates': Bombay HC Rejects Bar Association's Plea Against Establishment Of Court At Wai

Fatima Ansari

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Fatima Ansari

'Courts Exist For Convenience Of Litigants, Not Advocates': Bombay HC Rejects Bar Association's Plea Against Establishment Of Court At Wai

Fatima Ansari

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Fatima Ansari

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers