Litigants Have No Right to Choose the Bench: Bombay High Court Rules Rule 3A Is Mandatory, Sends Writ to Kolhapur

“The Doctrine of Merger Cannot Override Internal Judicial Discipline or the Chief Justice's Roster Authority” — In a judgment reinforcing the constitutional principle that the Chief Justice is the master of the roster, the Bombay High Court has ruled that writ petitions arising from Kolhapur must be heard at the Kolhapur Circuit Bench and cannot be retained at the Principal Seat in Mumbai, even if the appellate order under challenge was passed in Pune.

Justice Amit Borkar holding that Rule 3A of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, as inserted in 2025, is mandatory and leaves no discretion with either litigants or Judges to bypass the territorial distribution of judicial business.

“Rule 3A uses the word ‘shall’ and therefore creates a binding obligation on the Court to follow the territorial allocation laid down in the Rule,” observed Justice Borkar, rejecting the petitioner's contention that since the order impugned was passed in Pune, the Mumbai bench had jurisdiction.

“Judges Have No General Jurisdiction Over All Cases – They Can Hear Only What the Chief Justice Assigns”

The Court placed emphatic reliance on the Supreme Court’s authoritative ruling in State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand (1998) 1 SCC 1, which declared:

“Neither counsel nor litigants have any right to demand that a particular Judge or a particular bench should hear their case.”

Applying this principle, Justice Borkar held: “Once the Chief Justice and the Rules have provided that cases arising in Kolhapur District shall be heard at Kolhapur, that determination is binding. No Single Judge sitting at the principal seat can disregard it.”

The decision thus affirms the administrative supremacy of the Chief Justice under the Constitution and ensures that internal territorial rules are not defeated by forum shopping or procedural maneuvering.

Mumbai Bench Cannot Retain Writ Arising from Kolhapur

In Shri Shivneri Sahakari Bank Ltd. v. Rupee Cooperative Bank Ltd. & Ors., the petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging a cooperative dispute that originated in Kolhapur, was decided at the Cooperative Court in Kolhapur, and reversed by the State Cooperative Appellate Court at Pune.

The petitioner argued that since the final appellate order was passed in Pune, and because Article 227 does not mention "cause of action" like Article 226(2), the matter could be heard at Mumbai. The Court rejected this view decisively, stating: “The absence of the phrase ‘cause of action’ in Article 227 does not mean that the High Court cannot adopt territorial criteria for internal management of judicial business.”

Dispute Rooted in Kolhapur Cannot Migrate to Mumbai Bench

The dispute arose from a letter of credit issued by the petitioner’s Kolhapur branch, which was dishonoured, leading to litigation before the Cooperative Court at Kolhapur, and eventually to an appeal decided at Pune.

Despite the appellate order being passed in Pune, the Court emphasized that all material events occurred in Kolhapur, and therefore the situs of the original adjudicating authority remains Kolhapur.

Justice Borkar noted: “The appellate proceedings did not shift the geographical origin of the dispute. They only formed a continuation of the same dispute that began in Kolhapur.”

Court’s Legal Analysis: Rule 3A is Not Directory — It Is Mandatory

The High Court addressed the key legal issue — whether Rule 3A of the Appellate Side Rules mandates that petitions from Kolhapur must be heard at Kolhapur.

Rule 3A provides: “All appeals, applications, references and petitions including petitions for exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution arising in the Judicial Districts of Kolhapur... shall be presented to the Registrar, High Court Circuit Bench at Kolhapur and shall be disposed of by the Judges sitting at Kolhapur.”

Emphasizing the mandatory language, the Court held: “The use of the word ‘shall’ in Rule 3A shows that the Rule is mandatory in nature. It leaves no scope for discretion.”

The Court further clarified that the Rule does not interfere with the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court but serves the administrative purpose of internal allocation of work.

Doctrine of Merger Doesn’t Determine Forum – Focus Remains on Origin of Dispute

The petitioner argued that the doctrine of merger applied, claiming that the original Kolhapur order merged into the appellate Pune order, thus making Pune the situs for supervisory jurisdiction.

Justice Borkar categorically rejected this argument: “The doctrine of merger is not a rule for deciding which bench of the High Court should hear a writ petition.”

The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ambica Industries v. CCE (2007) 6 SCC 769 and ABC Papers Ltd. (2022) 9 SCC 1, where the Court ruled that jurisdiction under Article 227 must relate to the location of the original authority, not the appellate body.

“Legal materials support only one interpretation. For territorial allocation between benches of the same High Court, the origin of the dispute and the district in which the original authority acted remain relevant factors.”

Court Rejects Petitioner’s Attempt to Override Administrative Rules

The petitioner had also relied on older decisions like Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal (1975) 2 SCC 671 and Kusum Ingots v. Union of India (2004) 6 SCC 254.

But Justice Borkar clarified:

“These cases address inter-State jurisdictional issues. They guide situations where the Courts of two different States may both be connected to the dispute. That is not the case here. There is only one High Court of Bombay. It sits at different places for administrative convenience.”

The Court emphasized that the High Court’s own Appellate Side Rules, coupled with administrative notifications, control which bench hears which matter.

Master of Roster Principle Leaves No Room for Forum Shopping

Reinforcing the rule in Prakash Chand, the Court stressed that the Chief Justice’s power to assign work is absolute.

“Any assumption of work outside the roster fixed by the Chief Justice is without jurisdiction and violates judicial discipline.”

Even if a petition had been partly heard at the Principal Seat, the Court affirmed: “Even a part-heard case can be withdrawn from a Single Judge and transferred to another bench if the Rules so demand.”

This clearly dismantled the petitioner’s final argument that prior listing in Mumbai should entitle them to continue there.

Petition Must Be Transmitted to Kolhapur – No Right to Choose Forum

Summarising its decision, the Court held: “Litigants have no right to demand that their case be heard at a particular place or by a particular bench. Their right is to approach the High Court — not to choose the forum within it.”

The writ petition, while maintainable, must be transferred to the Kolhapur Bench under Rule 3A. The Office was directed to immediately transmit all papers to Kolhapur, and the parties were granted liberty to raise all substantive issues there.

Date of Decision: 9 December 2025