The petitioner has raised the grounds in the petition, which are akin to an appeal. As we have already adverted to and indicated with sufficient clarity that we are not a court of appeal. We are not a superior or higher court. We are but a coordinate Bench of the same court. The principal seat of this court cannot be said to be an appellate court and which can set aside a judgment of the Division Bench of this court rendered at Nagpur. Similarly, it has no powers by which it can issue binding directions to its own Benches or overturn or reverse their orders and judgments. If there is any defect or lacuna of such serious nature as is projected in this petition, it was open for the petitioner to have brought it to the notice of the very Bench. Even if that plea was of recusal, on rejection thereof, it was open for him to complain to the higher court. It was also open to him at that stage to request for transfer of the proceedings from Nagpur to the principal seat. That the petitioner awaits, till the final judgment is delivered, for such a plea to be raised, is undisputed. We are called upon and engaged in deciding the correctness and propriety, legality and validity of a final judgment of the coordinate Bench and which, the petitioner knows, binds him. We agree with Mr. Patil that if we follow the course suggested by the petitioner, it would set a very bad precedent. Then every litigant being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the orders and judgments delivered at Nagpur, Aurangabad and Goa (for which State this is a common High Court) would rush to this court's principal seat at Bombay and challenge it. The rule of law would be subverted if routinely such challenges are entertained at the principal seat. Then, nobody would resort to appellate remedies available in law and approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court as is the position before us. Apart from violating judicial discipline, such challenges, if entertained, would mean no order or judgment is final and binding within this court. The successful adversary or litigants like the petitioner would be harassed and vexed repeatedly. There would be no certainty and no finality to any proceedings and orders. Apart therefrom, there will be disharmony and discontent amongst the Judges of this court. No Bench will respect and have due regard to final orders and judgments of another Bench or the principal seat and vice-versa. Fraternity amongst the judges and real brotherhood would have to be preserved and protected at all costs. Disenchantment and disharmony within the judges of this court cannot be allowed and encouraging it would not be conducive to smooth and efficient administration of justice. That will be a casualty and irrespective of where the cause of action arises every litigant will institute proceedings wherever he finds it convenient and comfortable. Lawyers and litigants will take their chances and even if the Hon'ble Chief Justice does not exercise his/her power of transfer the proceedings can sometimes go on in a parallel manner before the Benches and the principal seat. The warning sounded by the learned counsel, therefore, ought to be take in the right spirit.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Writ Petition No. 3533 of 2017
Decided On: 04.06.2017
Satish Mahadeorao Uke Vs. The Hon'ble the Chief Justice, High Court of Judicature at Bombay and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
S.C. Dharmadhikari and P.D. Naik, JJ.
Citation: 2017(6) MHLJ 202
