Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

Punjab and Haryana High Court’s Expansion Necessitates Allotment of Sarangpur Land, Chandigarh Administration Directed: High Court Bench Proclaims

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant move aimed at addressing the burgeoning requirements of the judiciary, the High Court has directed the Chandigarh Administration to allocate land in Sarangpur for the expansion of High Court facilities. The decision came in the wake of the court’s observations about the increasing strength of judges and the corresponding need for more space.

During the hearing of case numbers CWP-PIL-9-2023 (O&M) and CWP-27621-2013 (O&M), the bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ritu Bahri and Justice Nidhi Gupta noted the substantial growth in the number of judges and advocates over the past decades. “As on today, the sanctioned strength of the High Court Judges is 85 and there are about 10,000 to 12,000 registered advocates in the High Court,” the bench observed.

Highlighting the historical perspective, the court pointed out that the sanctioned strength of the judges has risen from 9 in 1954 to 85 in 2024. This dramatic increase, along with the projection of a further rise to approximately 140-150 judges in the next 50 years, necessitates a significant expansion of the High Court’s infrastructure.

The proposed expansion includes the allotment of three plots in Sarangpur, comprising two plots of 6 acres each and one plot of 2.86 acres. This allotment is seen as crucial for accommodating the growing number of judges and the administrative staff. The court made it clear that, contrary to the earlier order dated 21.12.2023, the High Court will not relinquish its buildings in Sector 17 and Industrial Area Phase-I, Chandigarh.

In its ruling, the court directed the Chandigarh Administration to ensure the allotment of these plots, keeping in mind the future needs of the judiciary. The case is slated for further hearing on 24.01.2024, with the court’s order expected to have significant implications for the judicial infrastructure in Chandigarh.

The High Court’s proactive approach in planning for future requirements highlights the dynamic nature of India’s judicial system and its commitment to adapting to changing circumstances. The decision marks a significant step in ensuring that the judiciary’s infrastructure keeps pace with its evolving needs.

Date of Decision: 19 January 2024

Vinod Dhatterwal and others  Vs. Union of India and others

 

Latest Legal News