The State of West Bengal vs Union of India

131 to take recourse to the remedy available therein – Remedy under Art. 131 is a special remedy available only to the parties mentioned therein and for the purposes mentioned therein – Thus, the plea that, in view of the term “subject to the provisions of this Constitution” used in Art. 131, since various matters are already pending with regard to the subject matter of the present suit, be it the proceedings either u/Art. 136, Art. 32 or Art. 226, the suit would not be maintainable, cannot be accepted – Also the plea that suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts as regards many of the FIRs mentioned in the plaint are registered under the directions of the High Court u/Art.

226 is rejected – As regards, plea with regard to non-disclosure of cause of action against the UOI, it is only the averments in the plaint which can be gone into for considering as to whether the cause of action against the UOI arises or not and on the basis thereof, it cannot be said that the State has not made out any cause of action against the UOI. [Paras 65-67, 77-83] Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Ord. XXVI r. 6 – Plaints, when to be rejected:

Held: Plaint is liable to be rejected where it does not disclose a cause of action or where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law – Provisions in Ord. XXVI r. 6

(a) and (b) are analogous to the provisions in clauses (a) and (d) of Ord. VII r. 11 CPC – For considering objections u/Ord. VII r. 11

(a) and (d), only the averments made in the plaint needs to be looked into – If the averments made in the plaint are germane then the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at this stage – Furthermore, in view of the word ‘shall’ used in the provisions, a duty is cast on the court to examine as to whether the plaint is hit by any of the infirmities provided in the six clauses of Ord. VII r. 11 – Duty is cast on the court to reject the plaint even without the intervention of the defendant – Averments made in the plaint have to be read as a whole and not in isolation – As such it cannot be said that the objections could not be considered in the absence of an application for the rejection of plaint filed by the defendant under Ord. XXVI r. 6 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Ord. VII r. 11 (a), (d). [Paras 23-29] Constitution of India – Art. 131 – Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court – Term “subject to the provisions of this Constitution” used in Art. 131 – Interpretation of: Held: Art. 131 is a special provision which deals with the original jurisdiction of this Court in case of a dispute between the Federal Government and the State Governments – It provides for a special jurisdiction to this Court to decide any question on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends – Jurisdiction of this Court, subject to the provisions of the Constitution, is to the exclusion of any other court – Any dispute either between the Government of India and one or more States; or between the Government of India and any State or States on one side and one or more other States on the other; or between two or more States which involve a question on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends are covered by this provision – A special provision has been made for deciding the question on which the existence or extent of a legal right between the special parties mentioned therein has been provided – Thus, the words “subject to the provisions of this Constitution” will have to be considered in that context – Jurisdiction u/Art. 131 would only be subject to any other provision in the Constitution which provides for entertaining a dispute between the parties mentioned therein. [Paras 31, 76] Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 – Scheme of the Act – Explained. [Paras 52-67]