President Panchayat Union Council Vs. P.K. Muthusamy & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No.4774 of 2009
[Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No.12587 of 2008]
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).12587/2008
[From the Judgment & Order dated 19.02.2008 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.P. No. 30663 of 2007]
[Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No.12587 of 2008]
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).12587/2008
[From the Judgment & Order dated 19.02.2008 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.P. No. 30663 of 2007]
Petitioner: President Panchayat Union Council
Respondent: P.K. Muthusamy & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No.4774 of 2009
[Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No.12587 of 2008]
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).12587/2008
[From the Judgment & Order dated 19.02.2008 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.P. No. 30663 of 2007]
[Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No.12587 of 2008]
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).12587/2008
[From the Judgment & Order dated 19.02.2008 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.P. No. 30663 of 2007]
Judges: Markandey Katju & Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 27, 2009
Appearances:
Appearances
Ms. N. Shoba, Advocate, Mr. Sri Ram J Thalapathy, Advocates for the Appellant(s).
Mr. V. Prabhakar, (for Mrs.Revathy Raghavan), Advocate.for the Respondent(s).
Ms. N. Shoba, Advocate, Mr. Sri Ram J Thalapathy, Advocates for the Appellant(s).
Mr. V. Prabhakar, (for Mrs.Revathy Raghavan), Advocate.for the Respondent(s).
Head Note:
Civil LAWS
Central Excise Act, 1944
Accommodation required for district Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court – High Court directing government to allot the old block development office building for the same – Whether it is within the jurisdiction of court to pass such order. Held, no Order set-aside.`
Central Excise Act, 1944
Accommodation required for district Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court – High Court directing government to allot the old block development office building for the same – Whether it is within the jurisdiction of court to pass such order. Held, no Order set-aside.`
Cases Reffered:
1. Aravali Gold Club & Another v. Chander Hass & Another, [JT 2008 (3) SC 221] (Para 3)
2. Common Cause v. Union of India [JT 2008 (4) SC 317] (Para 3)
2. Common Cause v. Union of India [JT 2008 (4) SC 317] (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants.
3. 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 understand the High Courts concern that there should be proper accommodation 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 repeatedly saying that the judiciary should not ordinarily encroach into the domain of the executive or legislature, vide Divisional Manager, Aravali Gold Club & Another v. Chander Hass & Another, [JT 2008 (3) SC 221 : (2008) 1 SCC 683], Common Cause v.. Union of India, [JT 2008(4) SC 317], etc. There must be restraint in these matters on the part of the judiciary. We are confident that if the judiciary makes a request to the 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 resolve 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.
*********
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants.
3. 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 understand the High Courts concern that there should be proper accommodation 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 repeatedly saying that the judiciary should not ordinarily encroach into the domain of the executive or legislature, vide Divisional Manager, Aravali Gold Club & Another v. Chander Hass & Another, [JT 2008 (3) SC 221 : (2008) 1 SCC 683], Common Cause v.. Union of India, [JT 2008(4) SC 317], etc. There must be restraint in these matters on the part of the judiciary. We are confident that if the judiciary makes a request to the 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 resolve 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.
*********
