1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.955/2005 SUO MOTU PETITION ...Versus... Respondents :- 1. State of Maharashtra, through its Chief Secretary. 2. The Secretary, Tribal Department, Mantraylaya, Mumbai. 3. The Secretary, Law & Judiciary Department, Mantraylaya, Mumbai. 4. The Commissioner of Police, Nagpur Division, Nagpur. (Deleted) The Special Inspector General of Police, Nagpur Range, Nagpur. 5. The Collector, Gadchiroli. 6. The General Manager, M.S.R.T.C., Gadchiroli. (Deleted) The Divisional Manager, Maharashtra State Road Transport Copn. Division, Nagpur. 7. The Registrar General High Court of Judicature at Mumbai. 8. The President, Gadchiroli Bar Association, Gadchiroli. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 [Shri A.C. Dharmadhikari, Adv. - amicus curiae] [Smt. B.H. Dangre, Addl. G.P. for respdt. Nos.1 to 7] [Shri Anand Parchure, Adv. for respdt. No.8] CORAM:- S.A. BOBDE AND A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATED :- 16.06.2010 P.C. 1. This Court has taken suo motu action for calling upon the authorities to show cause why Court of District & Sessions Judge should not be established at Aheri in Gadchiroli District. It is well known that the area in question has a dense forest and it is very difficult to travel through that dense forest. Thus, it appears that from Sironcha to Gadchiroli, which is about 220 kilometers, a witness takes about seven hours or more to travel. 2. Learned amicus curiae submits that as a result most of the cases which involve witnesses from Sironcha, Aheri, Bhamragarh, Etapalli and Mulchera Talukas cannot be proceeded with properly, if trial is held at Gadchiroli. This submission refers only to cases triable exclusively by the District and Sessions Judge and more particularly under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, since admittedly Courts of Judicial Magistrate First Class have been established in these places. 3. Pendency of sessions cases arising from these areas was about 318. Thereafter, under order of this Court, Circuit Courts were ordered to function in these areas and the Circuit Courts have reduced the pendency to 172. 4. In this view of the matter, the High Court has gone into the viability and the need for establishment of Additional District and Sessions Court for these areas. It appears that the 3 pendency of cases arising from Aheri, Sironcha, Etapalli and Bhamragarh, which were being tried by Additional/District and Sessions Judge of Gadchiroli has been found as follows. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sr. Talukas Civil Criminal Total No. Cases Cases -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 01. Aheri 14 51 65 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 02. Sironcha 09 43 52 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 03. Etapalli 03 34 37 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 04. Bhamragad 03 15 18 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Grant Total : 29 143 172 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. Having regard to the ratio laid down as a result of Hon'ble Chief Justices' Conference, the High Court has come to conclusion that at this stage pendency is not sufficient for establishment of a new Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge at Aheri. 6. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that no further directions are necessary except that Circuit Courts shall continue to function. 7. We leave the question of frequency of Circuit Courts to be decided at the proper level. Writ Petition stands disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE SSW