Civil Appeal No 2065 of 1971 From the Judgment and order dated 2871970 of the Calcutta High Court in original order No 125 of 1970
BP Maheshwari SN Aggarwal and BM Bagaria for the Appellants
DN Mukarjee and GS Chatterjee for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA J
This appeal by certificate from the Calcutta High Court assails the affirming judgment of the Division Bench upholding the dismissal of a writ petition challenging the vires of the Calcutta City Civil Court Act 21 of 1953 and its later amendment on the ground of want of legislative competence of the State Legislature
The City Civil Court Act  Act  for short empowered the State Government to establish a civil court to be called the City Civil Court and under section 5 thereof the local limits and the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court was to be the city of Calcutta
Sub section 2 of s5 provided Subject to the provisions of sub sections 3 and 4 the 549 City Civil Court shall have jurisdiction and the High Court shall not have jurisdiction to try suits and proceedings of a civil nature not exceeding Rs 10000 in value
 The value of Rs 10000 was later enhanced to Rs50000 and again to Rs 1 lakh
The appellant moved the Calcutta High Court for a declaration that the Act was ultra vires the State legislature
It was contended that Parliament alone had the legislative competence to make law affecting the jurisdiction of the High Court
The learned single judge as also the Division Bench negatived the appellant s plea and have held that the Act was intra vires the Constitution
It is appropriate to refer to the relevant legislative entries in the three lists Union State and Concurrent as they stood in 1953 when the Act was enacted
In the Union List entries 77 78 and 95 are relevant
They provide 77
Constitution organisation jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court including contempt of such Court and the fees taken therein persons entitled to practise be fore the Supreme Court
Constitution and organisation including vacations of the High Courts except provisions as to officers and servants of High Court persons entitled to practise before the High Court
Jurisdiction and powers of all courts except the Supreme Court with respect to any of the matters in this list admiralty jurisdiction
 Entry 3 List II at the relevant time provided 3
Administration of justice constitution and organisation of all courts except the Supreme Court and the High Courts officers and servants of the High Court procedure in rent and revenue courts fees taken in all courts except the Supreme Court
 Entry 65 List II provides 65
Jurisdiction and powers of all courts except the 550 Supreme Court with respect to any of the matters in this list
 Entry 46 List III provides 46
Jurisdiction and power of all courts except the Supreme Court with respect to any of the matters in this list
 A Constitution Bench of this Court in State of Bombay vs Narothamdas Jethabhai  Anr   examined the validity of the Bombay City Civil Court Act of 1948
the provisions of that Act and the impugned Act are almost similar
The challenge to the vires of the Bombay Act had to be examined keeping the provisions of Government of India Act 1935 in view inasmuch as that was a pre Constitution legislation
Each of the learned Judges wrote a separate judgment but all of them were agreed that the Bombay Act was a law with respect to a matter enumerated in List II and was not ultra vires
Entry 53 of List I was to the following effect 53
Jurisdiction and powers of all courts except the Federal Court with respect to any of the matters in this list   Entries 1 and 2 of List II were as under 1
The administration of justice constitution and organisation of all courts except the Federal Court and fees taken therein  2
Jurisdiction and powers of all courts except the Federal Court with respect to any of the matters in this list procedure in Rent and Revenue Courts
 Entry 15 of List III was to the following effect 15
Jurisdiction and powers of all courts except the Federal Court with respect to any of the matters in this List
 The two relevant entries in List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution authorised law making on subject of administration of justice constitution and organisation of courts and jurisdiction and pow 551 ers thereof excepting in regard to the Supreme Court
These were the two expressions with reference to which Fazal Ali J in Narotham Das s case observed thus  the expressions administration of justice and constitution and organisation of courts which have been used therein without any qualification or limitation are wide enough to include the power and jurisdiction of courts for how can justice be administered if courts have no power and jurisdiction to administer it and how can courts function without any power of jurisdiction
Once this fact is clearly grasped it follows that by virtue of the words used in Entry I of List II the Provincial Legislature can invest the courts constituted by it with power and jurisdiction to try every cause or matter that can be dealt with by a court of civil or criminal jurisdiction and that the expression  administration of justice must necessarily include the power to try suits and proceedings of a civil as well as criminal nature irrespective of who the parties to the suit or proceeding or what its subject matter may be
This power must necessarily include the power of defining enlarging altering amending and diminishing the jurisdiction of the courts and defining their jurisdiction territorially and pecuniarily  The other learned Judges constituting the Bench took the same view namely administration of justice authorised making of law conferring on or taking away from courts jurisdiction to entertain cases
This decision of the Constitution Bench clearly negatives the claim of the appellant that the impugned Act was ultra vires the jurisdiction of the West Bengal Legislature
Admittedly the Act received Presidential assent and was therefore competent to bring about a change in the prevailing position obtaining under the Letters Patent of the Calcutta High Court
A similar challenge as in the present dispute had also been raised before the Calcutta High Court in the case of Amarendra Nath Roy Chowdhury vs Bikash Chandra Ghose  Anr and a learned single Judge relying on the decision of the Constitution Bench referred to above had held that the Act was intra vires the State legislature
We are of the view that the decision of the Constitution Bench is a clear and binding precedent against the appellant s stand
552 The appeal has no merit and is therefore
dismissed
There will be no order as cost in this Court
SR Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The Calcutta City Civil Court Act empowered the State Government to establish a civil court to be called the City Civil Court and under section 52 thereof the local limits and the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court was to be the city of Calcutta
Section 52 as it stands now fixed the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court at Rupees one lakh and excluded the High Court s jurisdiction up to that limit
The appellant moved the Calcutta High Court for a declaration that the Act was ultra vires the jurisdiction of the State Legislature and contended that Parliament alone had the legislative competence to make law affecting the jurisdiction of the High Court
The learned Single Judge and also the Division Bench negatived the appellant s plea and held that the Act was intra vires the Constitution
Hence the appeal by certificate
Dismissing the appeal the Court  HELD 1
Entries 1 and 2 of List II of the Government of India Act 1935 now Entry llA of List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution authorised law making on subject of administration of justice constitution and organisation of courts and jurisdiction and powers thereof excepting in regard to the Supreme Court
The Calcutta City Civil Court Act received the Presidential assent and was therefore competent to bring about a change in the prevailing position obtaining 548 under the Letters Patent of the Calcutta High Court551E G 2
In Narotham Das s case the Supreme Court took the view namely administration of justice authorised making of law conferring on or talking away from courts jurisdiction to entertain cases
Inasmuch as the provisions of the Bombay City Civil Court Act 1948 considered in Narotham Das s case and the provisions of the Calcutta Act are in pari materia the High Court correctly held that the Act was intra vires the Constitution
The decision of the Constitution Bench in Narotham Das s case is clear and binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution against the appellant s stand
551E FH State of Bombay vs Narothamdas Jethabhai  Anr   followed
Amarendra Nath Roy Chowdhury vs Bikash Chandra Ghose  Anr  approved